Moore v. Lackman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The individual note of a continuing partner, given for the debt of the firm, cannot be held to be a discharge of the partnership debt, even where there is an express agreement by the creditor to receive it as such. (2 Parsons Bills & Notes, 202; Way dell vs. Luer, 5 Hill, 448; Cole vs. Sachet, 1 Hill, 516 ; Brown vs. Stills, 49 Penn.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The individual note of a continuing partner, given for the debt of the firm, cannot be held to be a discharge of the partnership debt, even where there is an express agreement by the creditor to receive it as such. (2 Parsons Bills & Notes, 202; Way dell vs. Luer, 5 Hill, 448; Cole vs. Sachet, 1 Hill, 516 ; Brown vs. Stills, 49 Penn. S. R., 72.) One partner after a dissolution of co-partnership has no authority to make a note in renewal of a note of the co-part.-, nership.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
Action in the St. Louis Circuit Court brought by the plain- • tiffs, under the name and style of Young, Moore & Co., against defendants, (who at one time were partners under the firm name of D. H. Laekman) for goods sold and delivered.
Laekman successfully plead his discharge as a bankrupt; Weber his co-defendant by his answer admitted the sale of the goods as charged in the petition, but stated that the partnership, which had existed between himself and Laekman, had been dissolved, and the latter continued business on his own account ; that plaintiffs had due notice of such dissolution, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Powell v. BlowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
3Cited by4 opinions
- Knaus v. GivensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Seufert v. GilleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Campbell v. MyersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926
- Friedman v. M. Engel & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902