Fronebarger v. . Henry
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action of debt, for goods sold and delivered to the defendant, and one Colton as partners, under the firm of Colton and Iienry, and was tried before Bailey, J., at the Special Term, July, 1859. Plea. Nil debet. The plaintiff gave in evidence two notes, under seal, payable to the plaintiff, and executed in the name of the firm, by Colton, which had become due before the suit was brought.
Read the full summary
Action of debt, for goods sold and delivered to the defendant, and one Colton as partners, under the firm of Colton and Iienry, and was tried before Bailey, J., at the Special Term, July, 1859. Plea. Nil debet. The plaintiff gave in evidence two notes, under seal, payable to the plaintiff, and executed in the name of the firm, by Colton, which had become due before the suit was brought. The defendant insisted, that the instruments being under seal, did not bind him, and were, therefore, nol evidence of a sale and delivery of the goods. His Honor held that they were sufficient for that…
1Opinion of the CourtRueein, J.
It is settled that instrnménts, like these, do not merge the simple contract of the firm, in respect of the partner not executing them. Therefore, the defendant would be liable in indebitatus assumpsit, or debt for goods supplied to the firm, which formed the consideration of the two bonds given, if, in truth, they were given for that consideration. But it is not seen that the bonds can bo evidence to that point, as against tlio firm or the defendant. The rule of the common law, that one partner cannot bind another by deed, by virtue of his authority as partner, merely, and that an…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Aycock Supply Co. v. WindleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
- Aycock Supply Co. v. WindleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918