and Bateman (Bateson), 3 Campb. 478. | And see Shirreff v. Wilkes, 1 East, Ellenborough, C. J. 1813. 48; Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East, 175, 9. 35. But a subsequent parol acknow- 43. But a bill drawn on a firm and ledgment is evidence of such an autho-accepted by one partner in his own rity. Ibid. name, binds the partnership in the hands of a bona fide indorsee, though the consideration for the acceptance be a separate debt. Wells v. Masterman et alt. 2 Esp. 731. Kenyon, C. J. 1799. N. The 4th section of the statute of frauds does not require the agent to be authorized in writing. 36. A. draws and indorses a bill in blank in the firm of A. B. and C. for the purpose of raising money for the partnership. The bill is filled up and negotiated by a clerk after the death of A.; B. and C. are liable to a bond fide holder. Usher and another v. William Dauncey and others, 4 Campb. 97. Ellenborough, C. J. 1814. 37. A dormant partner may be made a co-defendant with the party who made the contract. Grellier v. Neale and others, Peake, 146. Kenyon, C. J. 1792. 38. If the defendant call a witness to prove that the goods for which the action is brought, were furnished on the credit and for the use of the latter, the plaintiff cannot, by merely suggesting that the witness is a partner, render him incompetent. Birt v. Hood, 1 Esp. 20. Kenyon, C. J. 1793. 44. The drawing and accepting of such bill being, however, a fraud upon the other partners, it is void in the hands of the drawer. Ibid. 45. Where one joint trader buys goods, and instead of bringing them to the shop converts them to his own use, the partnership is liable; unless the seller were privy to the fraud. Bond v. Gibson and Jephson, 1 Campb. 185. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808. And see Willett v. Chambers, Cowp. 814; D. 17, 2, 74. 46. A. advances money to B. on a note drawn by him in the firm of B. and C. after notice from C. that he will not be answerable for B.'s engagement. A. cannot recover in a joint action, though the money appear to have been applied to partnership purposes. Lord Galway v. Matthew and Smithson, 1 Campb. 403. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808. 39. But if it be admitted that he is a partner, he cannot be examined even to charge himself without a release from 47. A. being indebted to B. and C. the defendant. Young v. Bairner, 1 as partners, allows the amount upon the Esp. 21, and 103. Kenyon, C. J. 1794. settlement of a private account between 40. Money borrowed on the partner- himself and C. and takes a receipt from ship account, by one partner, for the C. for the partnership demand; this is purpose of defraying his expences whilst a good discharge. Henderson and Smith transacting the business of the house, is v. Wild, 2 Campb. 561. Ellenborough, a charge upon the whole firm. Roth- C. J. 1811. well v. Humphreys and Howell, 1 Esp. 406. Kenyon, C. J. 1795. And see Dig. 17, 2, 12; ibid. 17, 2, 52, 4; ibid. 17, 2, 61; Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Societé, chap. 7. num. 127, 8. And see APPENDIX. 48. But if after an advertisement in the gazette, announcing a dissolution of the partnership between B. and C. and requiring debts to be paid to the former only, such a receipt be given by C. 41. Where one partner clandestinely dated before the dissolution of partnerindorses in the name of the firm, an in-ship, it is fraudulent and void. Ibid. dorsee with notice cannot recover in a And the court of K. B. refused a joint action. Arden v. Sharpe and Gil-rule to set aside a verdict, found for the son, 2 Esp. 524. Kenyon, C. J. 1797. plaintiffs in conformity to his lordship's 42. A. draws a bill in the firm of A. direction. Ibid. and B. to the order of C. in satisfaction of a debt due from A. to C. who has no notice of the non-concurrence of B. C. cannot recover against A. and B. Green v. Deakin and others, 2 Stark. 347. Ellenborough, C. J. 1818. 49. One partner possesses no general authority under a power of attorney granted to his co-partner. Edmiston v. Wright, Bart. 1 Campb. 88. Ellenborough, C. J. 1807. And see Parker v. Kell, 1 Salk. 96; S. C. 1 Lord Raym. 658; Comber's] 57. Notice by a partner that the partcase, 9 Ca. Rep. 76 a; Warner v. Har-nership "has been dissolved," is evigrave, 2 Roll. Rep. 393; 2 Ch. cases, dence of the dissolution as against him, although the partnership articles require 50. A. and B. are partners; A. gives a dissolution by deed. Doe d. Waithnotice to a creditor not to deliver goods man v. Miles, 1 Stark. 181. Ellenbowithout A.'s concurrence. To recover rough, C. J. 1816. 202. for goods sold after this notice, it must 58. Upon the dissolution of the partbe to shew that A adopted the sale or nership between A. and B., the latter is derived benefit from the delivery. Willis entrusted with the settlement of affairs. v. Dyson, 1 Stark. 164. Ellenborough, He cannot indorse, in the name of the C. J. 1816. C. DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. firm, a security which formed part of the joint effects. Abel and another v. Sutton, 3 Esp. 108. Kenyon, C. J. 1800. S. P. Kilgour v. Finlayson, 1 H. Bl. 51. General notoriety of the dissolution of a partnership is not sufficient to 155. discharge the seceding partner from 59. Nor would A. be liable though after-made contracts, where no notice the money obtained upon negotiating has been inserted in the gazette. Gra- the security had been applied in liquiham and another v. Thompson and an-dation of the partnership debts. Ibid. other, Peake, 42. Kenyon, C. J. 1791. S. P. Kilgour v. Finlayson, 1 H. Bl. 52. And with respect to persons who 155. have dealt with the firm, an advertise- 60. And semble, that A. would not ment in the gazette is not sufficient. have been liable upon such an indorseNotice should be sent to them indivi-ment, though made whilst the partnerdually. Graham v. Hope, Peake, 154. ship subsisted, if the security had not Kenyon, C. J. 1792. been negotiated until after the dissolution. And see 1 Siderf. 127. Ibid. 53. Where there have been no pre- 61. A person who retires from a partvious dealings, an advertisement in the nership without giving notice in the gazette is presumptive evidence of no-gazette, and suffers his name to remain tice. Godfrey v. Turnbull and another, in the firm, is liable for the engagements 1 Esp. 371. Kenyon, C. J. 1795. of the firm, with a party whose dealings 54. From another report of the same began subsequently to the dissolution case, however, it would seem, that the of partnership, provided he had no nojury were directed to consider the point tice of the circumstances. Parkin v. merely with reference to the probability Carruthers et alt. 3 Esp. 248. Le Blanc, of the plaintiff's having seen the ga-C. J. 1800. zette, putting it on the same footing as 62. But where after notice of dissoany other newspaper. It appears also, lution, published in the gazette, and sent that the plaintiff received the note im-round to the proper parties, one of the mediately from the fraudulent partner. partners carries on business under the Godfrey v. Macauley and another, old firm, the seceding partners are not Peake, 155, n. Kenyon, C. J. 1795. bound to apply for an injunction; nor 55. And it seems to have been held are they liable to a party who was ig that notice in the gazette is in no case norant of the dissolution of partnership, sufficient, unless from other circum-unless it appear that they have interstances the jury infer that the party saw fered in the business or authorized the the gazette. Ibid. use of their names. Newsome v. W 56. But proof that the plaintiff habi- Coles, G. Coles, and C. Coles, 2 Campb. tually takes in a certain newspaper, is 617. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811. evidence to go to the jury that the 63. An alteration in the printed plaintiff had notice of a dissolution of cheques is a sufficient notice of a change partnership announced in such paper. in the firm of a banking-house to custoJenkins v. Blizard and another, 1 Stark. mers who have used the new cheques. 418. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816. Barfoot and others v. Goodall and others, 3 Campb. 147. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811. 64. A notice of the dissolution of a partnership constituted by deed is sufficient evidence of the dissolution as against the parties signing it. Doe d. Waithman and others v. Miles, 4 Campb. 373. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816. 65. Where the minute for advertising a dissolution of partnership in the Gazette, signed by the parties and attested, is produced as evidence of an actual dissolution, it requires an agreement stamp. May v. Smith, 1 Esp. 283. Kenyon, C. J. 1795. 66. A dormant partner whose name has never been announced, may withdraw from the concern without making the dissolution of partnership publicly known. Evans v. Drummond, 4 Esp. 89. Kenyon, C. J. 1801. 67. But if the acting partner state the existence of the partnership to a party who deals with the firm, the dormant partner is liable until such party has notice of the dissolution. Ibid. 68. Although the communication were made after the partnership had in fact ceased. Ibid. 69. The plaintiff is privy to an intention of A. and B. to dissolve their partnership, which is in the course of execution. In an action founded upon a supposed subsequent partnership transaction, the plaintiff must shew that the intention was abandoned. Paterson v. Zachariah and Arnold, 1 Stark. 71. Ellenborough, C. J. 1815. the dissolution of a partnership, assumpsit will lie for the balance, without an express promise. Rackstraw v. Imber, Holt, 368. Gibbs, C. J. 1816. D. PLEADINGS BY PARTNERS. D. (a) In actions by partners. 74. Assumpsit, by partners holders of bills indorsed in blank, and held that it is unnecessary to prove their partnership, or any joint title. Rordasnz and another, v. Leach, 1 Stark. 446. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816. 75. An after-taken partner cannot sue, though by the articles of partnership, he is to have a share in past transactions. Wilsford, et alt. v. Wood, 1 Esp. 182. Kenyon, C. J. 1794. S.P. Dig. 17, 2, 3. And see Young v. Hunter, 4 Taunt. 582. 76. The nonjoinder of a dormant partner, as a co-plaintiff is no ground of nonsuit. Leveck and Pollard v. Shaftoe, 2 Esp. 468. Kenyon, C. J. 1796. S. P. Lloyd v. Archbowle, 2 Taunt. 324; Mawman v. Gillett, ibid. 325, n. N. And qu. whether making the dormant partner a co-plaintiff, would not have been a misjoinder? vide dict. per Mansfield, C. J. 2 Taunt. 327. And see Lucas v. De la Cour, 1 M. & S. 249; Matthews, ex parte, 3 V. & B. 125. 77. Although the dormant partner be joined, the defendant may set off a debt owing to him from the ostensible partner only. Stacey Ross et alt. v. Decy, 2Esp. 469, n. Kenyon, C. J. 1789. S. C. 7 T. R. 361, n. 70. Where A. and B. give their acceptance for goods furnished on their joint credit, and after a dissolution of partnership, the holder and vendor take the separate bill of A. as a renewal of 78. A surviving partner may declare the former bill, B. is discharged. Ibid, generally upon a contract entered into and Reed v. White and others, 5 Esp. with him and his deceased partner, as 122. Ellenborough, C. J. 1804. Smith upon a contract made with himself alone. v. De Silva, Cowp. 469. Ditchburn v. Spracklin, and others, 5 71. Secus, where the separate bill is Esp. 31. Ellenborough, C. J. 1803. given merely as a collateral security. Acc. Read's case, Savile 92, pl. 171; Bedford v. Deakin, 2 Stark. 178. El-Co. Litt. 37 b; Brereton et ux. v. -Noy's lenborough, C. J. 1817. 2 B. & A. 210. 72. A partnership created by articles, not under seal, which contain an agreement for a partnership deed, may be dissolved at pleasure. Rackstraw v. Imber, Holt, 368. Gibbs, C. J. 1816. 73. Where an account is taken at Rep. 135; 2 Vin. Abr. Actions (Joinder). Dd. pl. 16; Hyat v. Hare, Comberb. 383, recognized 2 T. R. 479; Richards v. Heather, 1 B. & A. 29. Cont. 2 Wms. Saund. 121. n. 1; 2 M. & S. 25. per Le Blanc, J. Contra as to declaration against a surviving partner. Tissard v. Warcup, I continuance, lies without notice to quit. And see ante, ACTION, E. (a). And see 1 Wms. Saunders, 291, f, g; 83. A. and B. being partners, a bill Greenway v. Hornblow, Hardres, 221; is indorsed to A. in respect of a parF. N. B. 556, Note b; Holdwich v. ticular partnership transaction. A. Chafe, Aleyn, 41; 5 Ves. 295; post, VARIANCE. N. A surviving feoffee may plead a feoffment to himself, without naming his joint feoffee, Co. Lit. 185; ibid. 37 b; 1 Tho. Co. Lit. 609, 749; F. N. B. 219, B; Harrison v. Belsey, T. Raym. 413. 79. But a surviving lessor cannot recover on a count for use and occupation in which his deceased co-lessor is not named. Lazarus v. Simmonds. Abbott, J. London, 6 May, 1818, MSS.; S. C. by the name of Israel v. Simmons, 2 Stark. 356. And the court refused a rule to set aside nonsuit, on the ground that the plaintiff should either have declared as surviving lessor, or have stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for use and occupation by the sufferance of plaintiff and of the deceased. Ibid. Acc. per Littleton, M. 14, E. 4. fo. 1, pl. 5; S. P. Anno 8, E. 2. Itin. Can. Fitz. Entre, 77. indorses it to B. who indorses over, and promises A. that if the latter will take up the bill when dishonoured, he will pay him one half of the amount. This is not such an insulated transaction as will entitle A. to maintain assumpsit against B. Robson v. Curtis, 1 Stark. 78. Ellenborough, C. J. 1815. 80. A. and B. are joint tenants of a farm and stock. A.'s interest in the stock is taken in execution and sold to C. Held, that C. stands in the shoes of A. and cannot maintain an action for money had and received against B. who sells the whole stock. Leigh, gent. v. J. 1815. Bradford. Abbott, J. Devon Spring Assizes. 1818. D. (b) In actions against partners. B. FORM OF SPECIFICATION. 2. A patent is void, if the specification omit an ingredient used by the inventor 81. An attomey is not culpable in for expediting the process. Wood and neglecting to file a plea of nonjoinder in others v. Zimmer and others, Holt, 58. abatement expressly for delay. John-Gibbs, C. J. 1815. son, gent. v. Alston, 1 Campb. 176. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808. E. PROCEEDINGS BY ONE PARTNER 82. Ejectment on the demise of one copartner against another, after dissolution of partnership, for a house agreed to be occupied by the partners during its 3. Or if the article has been publicly sold by the inventor before he obtained his patent. Ibid. 4. Where a patent is obtained for an improvement, a specification not distinguishing what is new from what is old, is bad. Macfarlane v. Price, 1 Stark. 199. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816. But see Harmer v. Playne, 11 East, 101; Bovill v. Moore, 2 Marshall, 211. 5. And although an inventor introduce a new or extend an old principle, yet, if his specification be limited to the principle, the patent is void. R. v. Cutler, 1 Stark. 354. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816. Post. PENAL ACTION, pl. 16. C. INROLMENT. 6. A proviso that a specification shall be inrolled within one calendar month next after the date, which is the 10th May, is satisfied by an inrolment on the 10th of June. Watson v. Pears, 2 Campb. 294. Ellenborough, C. J. 1809. S. P. Thomas v. Topham, Dyer, 218, b; Anon, (but S. C.) F. Moore, 40; Clayton's case, 5 Co. 1, b. PAUPER. (And see ante, GAME, pl. 8.) (e) 18 Geo. II. cap. 20. (f) 25 Geo. II. cap. 36. sect. 2. (i) 14 Geo. III. cap. 78. sect. 67. B. PLEADINGS. C. EVIDENCE. A. CASES UPON PARTICULAR STA TUTES. A. (a) 5 Eliz. cap. 4. (And see post, A. (c).) 1. A person who has conducted the business of a manufacturer for seven 1. Where a servant in husbandry is years as managing clerk, though never seized with a sudden and dangerous ill-engaged in the manual labour of the buness in a distant parish, the overseers of siness, is entitled to exercise the trade that parish are bound to support him. himself. Smith v. Company of ArSimmons v. Wilmott and others, 3 Esp. mourers and Braziers of the City of 91. London, Peake, 148. Kenyon, C. J. 1792. Eldon, C. J. 1800. 2. And a stranger who takes care of the pauper, without the interference of the parish officers, may recover from them the money he expends. Ibid. And see Atkins v. Banwell, 2 East, 505; Wennall v. Adney, 3 Bos. & Pul. | 247, 9; 2 Nol. P. L. 240. Cont. 12. Vin. Abr. Evidence, (T. b. 11.) pl. 22; Ante, MASTER AND SERVANT, A. (b). PENAL ACTION. A. CASES UPON PARTICULAR STA TUTES. (a) 5 Eliz. cap. 4. (d) 11 Geo. II. cap. 19. sect. 4. And see 1 Saund. 312, n. 1; Keen v. Dormay, 15 East, 161. 2. In debt for using a trade without having served an apprenticeship, the whole time laid in the declaration need not be proved, provided it be averred that the defendant forfeited 40s. for every month. Powell, qui tam v. Farmer, Peake, 57. Kenyon, C. J. 1791. 3. A master sawyer employs a person in his trade who has never before worked in it, under a parol agreement to teach him the business in consideration of a future premium, without any stipulation as to time, and to pay him weekly wages. This is not an apprenticeship within 5 Eliz. cap. 4. sect. 31. so as to protect the employer from the penalty of setting to work in his trade a person who has not been brought up or served therein seven years as an apprentice. Beale, qui tam v. Geale, 2 Campb. 1. Ellenborough, C. J. 1809. 4. A person is not liable to penalties |