Thе defendants appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the superior court of Los Angeles County, upon a promissory note.
Appellant copartnership, consisting of defendants Whitе and Winthrop, was engaged in general printing, advertising, multigraphing and mimeographing business, for which they solicited orders, and furnished stationery, supplies and labor. Respondent purchased stationery and printing from them, аnd upon the application of Winthrop loaned $500, and $2,000, for which the latter signed promissory notes to the bank, -“Robert A. Winthrop. Thompson Adv. Company”. An account was opened at the bank by Winthrop in the name of “Thompson Adv. Co., Partnership”, and various amounts were withdrawn, totaling $2,063.54, by checks signed by him. Numerous statements rendered by the copartnership for printing and stationery were paid by the bank, which were recеipted as follows: “Paid”. “Thompson Advertising Company by George Cossitt White”. Respondent thereafter notified said company of the amount due upon the notes and • requested payment, whereupon aрpellant White denied knowledge of the account. Following negotiations between the partiеs and their counsel, White assigned an insurance policy as security for- the amount due, and later executed a promissory note in his individual name and that of the company, therefor. The present suit was institutеd for collection of the note last mentioned.
The several grounds assigned for reversal of the judgment revolved about the question as to whether or not the note in suit was a valid obligation of the advertising company and of White. It is strenuously insisted that the copartnership was a “trading” and not a general pаrtnership, that Winthrop incurred the indebtedness as an individual, without authority to bind the partnership, and that the latter received no benefit from the original loan; that White gave the final obligation upon advice of counsel only when threatened with suit, and that it was therefore executed under mistake of law, and without сonsideration. It is not denied that with the exceptions of office rent for one month, and the salary of an assistant, the moneys borrowed were devoted by Winthrop to his personal use. Nor
*329
is it contended by respondent that the bank had been furnished with evidence in writing of his actual authority to bind the partnership. But it dealt with them as partners in all transactions, opened an account in the name of the partnership, received a signature card signed by Winthrop, and directed that he obtain the signature of White, and bills for mеrchandise were receipted by both partners. Hence, to all intents and purposes they were accepted and treated by the bank as general partners, with equal authority to transact all business in the name and on behalf of the firm. We are not unmindful of the legislative changes in the law of partnership, but prior to such amendments and when these promissory notes were executed, there was no distinсtion between a trading and a nontrading partnership. Where a partner of a general partnеrship executed notes in the ordinary course of business, it was held that his associate was bound thereby еven though he had no knowledge of their existence.
(Jacobson
v.
Lamb,
The judgment is affirmed.
Works, P. J., and Archbald, J., pro tem., concurred.