Hurst v. Hill
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county. Assumpsit, brought by the appellants, on the 30th of July 1853, against the appellee and Levin Gardner, on a promissory note of John R. Hill & Co. in favor of the plaintiffs, for $904.65, dated the 8th of April 1850, and payable in six months. The declaration contained a special count upon the note and the usual money count.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county. Assumpsit, brought by the appellants, on the 30th of July 1853, against the appellee and Levin Gardner, on a promissory note of John R. Hill & Co. in favor of the plaintiffs, for $904.65, dated the 8th of April 1850, and payable in six months. The declaration contained a special count upon the note and the usual money count. Gardner suffered a judgment by default, and Hill pleaded non assumpsit and limitations. 1st Exception. The plaintiffs proved that the defendants, Hill and Gardner, constituted the firm of John R. Hill & Co., which was…
1Opinion of the CourtTuck, J.
The point to be considered on the defendant’s prayer is, whether, upon the proof stated, he was liable on the note made by Gardner, in the name of the firm, on the 8th of April 1850, after the partnership had been dissolved.
Upon the propriety of this instruction we enlertain no doubt. The decided cases show very clearly, that one partner cannot, by a new contract, in the name of the firm, bind his late partner, even when the consideration is a debt of the firm. In Ellicott vs. Nichols, 7 Gill, 100, the Court of Appeals said, “tbe doctrine is fundamental, that from the moment tbe partnership…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bell v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Ellicott v. NicholsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1848
- Cross v. HallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ecker v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
- Rose v. CoffieldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880