Johnson v. Marsh
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Appeal from the District Court of St. Martin, Overton, J. contended that an authority conferred on one partner to liquidate a partnership, is an express and special power, within the -meaning of art. 2966, authorising him to execute notes for balances d,ue to the .creditors of the partnership. After dissolution, a partner .cannot bind the firm without a special power.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of St. Martin, Overton, J. contended that an authority conferred on one partner to liquidate a partnership, is an express and special power, within the -meaning of art. 2966, authorising him to execute notes for balances d,ue to the .creditors of the partnership. After dissolution, a partner .cannot bind the firm without a special power. C. C. 29G6. 18 La. 332. 5 Rob 172. 6 Rob. 70. 11 Rob. 95. Story on Partnership, 1G1, 460. Answers to interrogatories can only affect those immediately concerned in asking or answering them. 10 T.oullier, n.o. 391.
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the .court was pronounced by
King, J.
The defendants were partners in a plantation and distillery, which ■was dissolved in October, 1834, when Marsh, one of the partners, was charged with the liquidation of its affairs. In 1840, Marsh executed the note upon which this suit is founded, and subscribed it with the partnership name. For the amount of this note the plaintiff seeks to render the defendants liable in .so-lido, as commercial partners. Two of them, I. E., and M. C. Morse, resist payment, on th.e ground that the .partnership was dissolved before the execution of the note,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lachomette v. ThomasSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1843
- Rudy v. HardingSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1843