Fagan v. Long
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Si. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was a suit originally instituted before a justice of the peace against Francis Shields and Patrick Long 011 the following promissory note : “ $105. August 25, 1857. Duo to Thomas Fagan, or order, one hundred and five dollars, for value received, on section seventeen of south-west branch of the Pacific Railroad, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount. [Signed] F. Shields & Co.” The plaintiff obtained…
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Si. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was a suit originally instituted before a justice of the peace against Francis Shields and Patrick Long 011 the following promissory note : “ $105. August 25, 1857. Duo to Thomas Fagan, or order, one hundred and five dollars, for value received, on section seventeen of south-west branch of the Pacific Railroad, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount. [Signed] F. Shields & Co.” The plaintiff obtained judgment before the justice, and the defendant Long appealed. On the trial in the law commissioner’s court a severance was…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This judgment must be reversed for the contradictory instructions given by the court.
An incoming partner is not liable for debts contracted before he enters the partnership. For such debts no member of the firm can, by using the partnership style, bind the incoming partner. But an incoming partner may, by his agreement, become liable for such debts ; and with the understanding and consent of all parties a note may be given in the partnership name for such debt. The new firm, with the *225consent of the creditor, may novate the debt. (Story on Part. § 152-3.) The instructions given for the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Cutchin v. BattertonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1823
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hely v. HinermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Bank of Scott City v. SanduskyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Reavis v. ReavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923
- Roberts, Johnson & Rand Shoe Co. v. ShepherdMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902