Gage Bros. v. Rogers Sisters
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Cass Circuit Court. — Hon..Chas. W. Sloan, Judge., (1) Evidence of the mere notoriety of the dissolution of partnership is not admissible to effect a party with’ notice of that fact, it not appearing that such party had actual knowledge thereof, or that notice of ■dissolution had been published in any newspaper. Pitcher v. Barrows, 28 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Cass Circuit Court. — Hon..Chas. W. Sloan, Judge., (1) Evidence of the mere notoriety of the dissolution of partnership is not admissible to effect a party with’ notice of that fact, it not appearing that such party had actual knowledge thereof, or that notice of ■dissolution had been published in any newspaper. Pitcher v. Barrows, 28 Am. Dec. 32. (2) Prior to-the publication of a dissolution notice, actual notice of dissolution' is required in order to exonerate Addie Rogers, as to G-age Bros. & Go., with whom the firm of Rogers .Sisters had previously dealt. Notice through…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
The defendant, Addie Rogers, with Belle Rogers, her sister, was engaged under the firm-name of *430Rogers Sisters in the millinery business at Springfield, Missouri. The partnership was dissolved on August 13, 1889, and Belle continued the business alone. Plaintiffs, Gage Bros., of Chicago, Illinois, were prior dealers with the Rogers Sisters, having sold them .goods at different times. This suit was brought for goods sold by Gage Bros, in September, October and November following Addie Rogers’ withdrawal from the firm. The question tried was as to whether or not plaintiffs, as' previous dealers,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mauldin v. Branch Bank at MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Richards v. Butler & CarrollSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
- Johnson v. TottenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1853
- Rabe v. Wells & Co.California Supreme Court · 1853