Lyon v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
[ *2 ] ^Assumpsit, for coal sold to the defendants as partners. It was claimed in defense that the partnership between tbe defendants bad been previously dissolved and sufficient notice of the dissolution given.
Read the full summary
[ *2 ] ^Assumpsit, for coal sold to the defendants as partners. It was claimed in defense that the partnership between tbe defendants bad been previously dissolved and sufficient notice of the dissolution given. The defendants, Johnson and Signor, previous to the 9th day of March, 1857, had been in partnership in the town of Dan-bury, under the name of R. Johnson & Co., and as such partners had, in the fall of 1856, purchased coal of the plaintiffs, who also did business in Danbury as partners under the name of Lvon & Burr. On the 9th day of March, 1857, the firm was dissolved, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtBut lee, J.
There is no error in the judgment of the court below, and this will be apparent from a brief statement of the principles applicable to the case.
By the constitution of a general partnership and as one of the elements of it, each partner is vested by his copartners with power to contract for, and bind the firm, within the scope of the partnership business. Each is constituted the agent of all, and each is responsible for the acts of all.
Once existing and publicly known to exist, the con'tinuance of the connection will be presumed by the public till the contrary appears. If a dissolution takes…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Snow v. DuxstadWyoming Supreme Court · 1915
- Gilchrist v. BrandeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Eaton & Prince Co. v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Tousignant v. Shafer Iron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Rauhut v. ShortConnecticut Superior Court · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.