Smith v. Loring
Ohio Supreme Court
This ease was reserved for decision here by the Supreme Court in Hamilton county. It was a bill in chancery, brought by one-partner against another, for an account and settlement of the partnership concern. The bill stated that the complainant and defendant entered into -partnership as merchants, in the year 1817, and continued to deal :as partners until December, 1821, when the partnership was dissolved by mutual consent.
Read the full summary
This ease was reserved for decision here by the Supreme Court in Hamilton county. It was a bill in chancery, brought by one-partner against another, for an account and settlement of the partnership concern. The bill stated that the complainant and defendant entered into -partnership as merchants, in the year 1817, and continued to deal :as partners until December, 1821, when the partnership was dissolved by mutual consent. It alleged that the affairs of the company remained unsettled. But as the controversy related entirely to a single item of account between the parties, it is unnecessary to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
There is no difficulty about the facts material to the decision of this cause. It is clear that Loring originally indorsed Harlow’s note with his own name, and upon his own account, and that he afterward substituted that of the partnership, without the knowledge, authority, or consent of Smith.
We entertain no doubt but, upon this state of facts, Loring was accountable to Smith for any loss sustained by the partnership, The making use of the partnership name to remove his own, was an application of the partnership credit to his separate use. And if pecuniaiy loss followed, its…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Cook v. BloodgoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845