Valkenburg v. Bradley & McCullough
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Jefferson District Court. For a statement of the facts see the opinion of the court. After the dissolution of a copartnership, one partner has no power to execute a note in the firm name for the purpose of renewing a note executed before the dissolution. Bayley on Bills, 58; Whitman v. Leonard, 3 Pick., 177 ; Barde of South Carolina v. Humphreys, 1 McCord, 188; 3 Kent Com., 70; 1 Curtis Cond. R., 186 ; -Pars. Merc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson District Court. For a statement of the facts see the opinion of the court. After the dissolution of a copartnership, one partner has no power to execute a note in the firm name for the purpose of renewing a note executed before the dissolution. Bayley on Bills, 58; Whitman v. Leonard, 3 Pick., 177 ; Barde of South Carolina v. Humphreys, 1 McCord, 188; 3 Kent Com., 70; 1 Curtis Cond. R., 186 ; -Pars. Merc. Law, 191. relied upon Kemp & Doggett v. Coffin, 3 G. Greene, 190.
1Opinion of the CourtLowe, J.
—
Two of the defendants, as former copartners, and the other as their surety, were sued upon^a promissory *109note of $233.33, dated the 12th of December, 1859. The facts developed on the trial of the cause show that the firm of Bradley &McCullough was duly dissolved on the 13th day of June, 1859, and that by the terms of the dissolution Bradley assumed the debts, took possession of the books, notes and papers, and was to settle up all the affairs and business of the concern. In December following, the plaintiff held a large note, overdue, executed by-Bradley & McCullough, during their existence…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cresco Union Sav. Bk. v. Terry TerrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Williams v. ScheeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
- Heiden v. BeuttlerDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1935