Breckinridge v. Shrieve
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Assumpsit. From the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. The facte, The declaration, pleas &c. Assiimpsit lies, in this state, on h written acceptance.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. From the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. The facte, The declaration, pleas &c. Assiimpsit lies, in this state, on h written acceptance. Ante, 853. Partners, in general, have authority to hind their firms in all contracts in the tegular Course of their husinesssuch as those deal ing with them, would ^consider as made in behalf of the firm, and for its benefit.— But— .The right of one Íiartner to hind lis. co-par'tners, is not unlimited, but more or less extensive, as the business and operations to which the partnership extends,are more or less extensive. Borrowing money is no…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Marshaux.
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
In the year 1832, James D. Breckinridge and James W. Denny, being partners in the practice of law in the city of Louisville, collected a sum of money for the firm of Kellogg and Baldwin, of New York; who being immediately apprised of the fact, drew a bill upon them for the net amount. In the latter part of December, 1832, the bill having come to the Branch of the United States» Bank at Louisville, for collection or payment, Denny ap. plied to a ‘shaver’s broker’ for the loan of three hundred and fifty dollars for eight or ten days; stating…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lee v. First National Bank of Fort ScottSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- Worster v. ForbushMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- O'Connor v. SherleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
- Third National Bank v. SnyderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881