Tombeckbee Bank v. Dumell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island
Assumpsit on a bill-of exchange drawn on 17th of March, 1827, in Alabama, -by Stone, Ellis & Co., at sixty days’ sight, on the defendants, for $3.000, payable to Moses Sewall or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The declaration averred a presentment for acceptance, and- an acceptance and-subsequent non-payment.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a bill-of exchange drawn on 17th of March, 1827, in Alabama, -by Stone, Ellis & Co., at sixty days’ sight, on the defendants, for $3.000, payable to Moses Sewall or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The declaration averred a presentment for acceptance, and- an acceptance and-subsequent non-payment. There were -other counts on other similar bills.- Plea, the general issue. -At the trial, the-sole defence relied on was, that the acceptance was made by Jacob Dumell after the dissolution of-the partnership between him and his co-defendant, John Lyman. It appeared in…
1Opinion of the Court
STORY, Circuit Justice.
Upon this statement of facts, which is not controverted, I am of opinion, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover. No partner has any authority after a dissolution of the partnership, to bind his copartners by any new contract. The acceptance of these bills is altogether a new contract. It is true, that if the partnership is still ostensibly carried on in the name of the firm, and no public notice is given of the dissolution of the partnership, though it is secretly dissolved, third persons, dealing with the firm upon the faith of the partnership and joint…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Holdane v. ButterworthThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859
- Smith v. MiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- French v. PriceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1833