Tanner v. Hall
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writ of error to Erie county. It appeared, from the record, that William L. Hall and Chauncey Easton, doing business under the firm of Hall & Easton, were partners in a paper-mill at North East. On the 1st of November, 1836, Hall drew his promissory note, at three months, in favour of J. Cochran & Co., for $428, and they endorsed it for his accommodation.
Read the full summary
Writ of error to Erie county. It appeared, from the record, that William L. Hall and Chauncey Easton, doing business under the firm of Hall & Easton, were partners in a paper-mill at North East. On the 1st of November, 1836, Hall drew his promissory note, at three months, in favour of J. Cochran & Co., for $428, and they endorsed it for his accommodation. He added the endorsement of his own firm without his partner’s knowledge, and had it discounted by the Lumbermen’s Bank, which sent it to the Bank of Buffalo for collection, having placed the proceeds to his separate account. The note, being…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
A partner is clothed with all the authority of his firm to bind it by acts within the scope of its business; but by no other acts can he bind it without the express or implied sanction of his co-partners. Where they have given it in terms, there can be no difficulty in applying the principle to particular cases: to deduce it from circumstances is less easy; and little assistance is to be had from decided cases, discrepant as they are in particulars. Yet it seems easy to rule any case that may occur, by attending to the established distinctions. It is not doubted that a partner cannot pay his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gansevoort v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1835
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. PettitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Odd Fellows Home v. Velenchick Bros.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919