Humphries v. Chastain
Supreme Court of Georgia
Assumpsit. Tried before Judge Warren, in Baker Superi- or Court, June Term, 1848. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Humphries vs. Chastain, on a promissory note, indorsed by Chastain & Harvey. The declaration alleged that Harvey, since the indorsement, had become a certified bankrupt.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Tried before Judge Warren, in Baker Superi- or Court, June Term, 1848. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Humphries vs. Chastain, on a promissory note, indorsed by Chastain & Harvey. The declaration alleged that Harvey, since the indorsement, had become a certified bankrupt. It appeared on the trial, that Chastain & Harvey, had been partners in trade, and it was in proof by the defendant, that the copartnership had been dissolved before the indorsement of the note; that the indorsement was made by Harvey ; that the firm’s name was used by Harvey, without his (Chastain’s)…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
-Warner, J.
delivering the opinion.
[1.] The question made by the record in this case, is, whether *167one partner, after the dissolution of the copartnership, can bind bis copartner by a new contract, for tbe payment of a pre-existing copartnership debt.
That after tbe dissolution of a copartnership, one copartner cannot bind tbe other by indorsing a note in the copartnership name, is, we think, well settled, both upon principle and authority; and that the note so indorsed, is in payment of a debt due by the copartnership, makes no difference. Lyon on Partnership, 274. Sanford vs.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bower v. DouglassSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
- Woodson v. WoodSupreme Court of Virginia · 1888
- Dial v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Merrick v. Merchants National BankLucas County Court of Common Pleas · 1901