Turnbow v. Broach
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 56 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT. CITED Smith’s Mercantile Law by H. G., 95. 1 B. Mon. 199, Doniphan v. Gill. 6 Bush, 401, Maeklin’s ex’r v. Crutcher. 9 Bush, 417, Smith v. Turner’s adm’r. 3 B. Mon. 178, J. & J. Brozee v. W. & N. Poyntz. 2 B. Mon. 420, Calk v. Orear. 16 B. Mon. 355, Merrit v. bollys.
Read the full summary
Case 56 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT. CITED Smith’s Mercantile Law by H. G., 95. 1 B. Mon. 199, Doniphan v. Gill. 6 Bush, 401, Maeklin’s ex’r v. Crutcher. 9 Bush, 417, Smith v. Turner’s adm’r. 3 B. Mon. 178, J. & J. Brozee v. W. & N. Poyntz. 2 B. Mon. 420, Calk v. Orear. 16 B. Mon. 355, Merrit v. bollys. CITED 1 B. Mon. 199. 2 B. Mon. 420. 3 B. Mon. 179. 2 Mete. 523. 9 Bush, 417. A. Williams & Co., composed of A. Williams and B. R. Turnbow, executed a note to Broach, in 1860 or 1861, for $100 money borrowed for the use of the firm, and soon thereafter the firm…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE GOFER
delivered the opinion oe the court.
The case of Doniphan, &c. v. Gill (1 B. Mon. 199) seems to be conclusive of this case. Doniphan & Smoot were partners. Smoot borrowed money for the firm of Mrs. Gill, and delivered to her a sealed obligation for payment signed “Doniphan & Smoot.” One partner had no authority to bind his co-partners by an instrument under seal, and when sued on the note Doniphan pleaded non est factum; and there being no evidence of express authority to bind him by a writing under seal, the action was dismissed and an action of assumpsit was brought against both…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Doniphan v. GillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1841
3Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1879
- Fields v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877