Leidy v. Gould
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. Where one allows the continued use of his name as partner after retiring from a particular business, and thereby induces another to deal with the business as a partnership, such ostensible partner will be estopped to deny the partnership relation as to acts within the ordinary scope of such business. Civil Code (1910), § 3157; Barnett Line v. Blackmar, 53 Ga. 98; Sankey v. Columbus Iron Works, 44 Ga. 228 (2); 30 Cyc. 390. But, in order to hold the ostensible partner liable, the contract must be in relation to and in the scope of that particular business or adventure which the retiring…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Shaw v. Jones, Newton & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Sankey & Shorter v. Columbus Iron WorksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1871
- Sibley v. American Exchange National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Hollister Bros. v. Bluthenthal & BickartCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
- Barnett Line of Steamers v. Blackmar & ChandlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Carswell v. Woodward Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
- Brandt v. EckmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
- Coaxum v. GrahamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Rowland v. LovettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932