Judge v. Braswell
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 12 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. One member of a mining or other non-trading partnership has no 'implied power to pledge the credit of the other partners by drawing bills of exchange in the firm name.
Read the full summary
Case 12 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. One member of a mining or other non-trading partnership has no 'implied power to pledge the credit of the other partners by drawing bills of exchange in the firm name. (Breckinridge v. Shrieve, 4 Dana, 878; Headley v. Brainbridge, 3 Q. B. 323 ; Dilworth v. Mayfield, 36 Miss. 51; Duryea v. Burt, 28 Oal. 577; Byles on Bills, 33, 92, 58, 105; Smith v. Sloan, 37 Wis. 296; Hunt v. Chapin, 6 Lansing, N. Y., 139; Cocke v. Branch Bank, 3 Ala. 178; Toof v. Duncan, 45 Miss. 56; Ulery v. Ginrich, 57 111. 533; Burmester v. Morris, 8 Eng. Law…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE GOFER
delivered the opinion op the court.
February 12, 1873, J. D. Morris, E. C. Machen, R. E. Cross, N. B. Peck, and Philip Judge entered into a written agreement, wherein it was recited that Morris & Machen had, by leases from the owners thereof, secured the right to enter upon divers tracts of land situated in Lyon County, for the purpose of prospecting for and mining iron ore and other minerals, and that there was much other land in the same county which could be leased upon similar terms. The writing then proceeds:
“Said Morris & Machen, R. E. Cross, N. B. Peck, and Philip Judge have…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Williams v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1879
- Snively v. MathesonWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Miller v. McCordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Schellenbeck v. StudebakerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1895
- Davis v. WileyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1881
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.