History
  • No items yet
midpage
Cunningham v. Bragg & Co.
37 Ala. 436
Ala.
1861
Check Treatment
STONE, J.

The ruling of the circuit court in this case can not be supported. After'the dissolution of tbe firm, the one partner bad no authority to bind*the other by any new contract he might enter into* The note which.Mr. Cole executed was the evidence of a- debt, an- admission that the sum therein mentioned was due to Messrs. Bragg & Co. He had no authority to bind Mr. Cunningham by his admissions. The proof, as-recited in, the record, did not authorize a recovery against - the present 'appellant, on-the note. A recovery on the original contract, if proved, may probably be had on a proper count. — Lang v. Waring, 17, Ala. 145, 157, and authorities : Coll. on Partnership, by Perkins, § 540, and note;. ib. § 546; Perine v. Keene, 19 Maine, 355 Bowman v. Blodgett, 2 Metc. 308 ; Edgar v. Cook, 4 Ala. 588 ; Lee v. Fountain & Freeman, 10 Ala. 755.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Cunningham v. Bragg & Co.
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Jan 15, 1861
Citation: 37 Ala. 436
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.