Patterson v. CamdenPatterson v. Camden
delivered the opinion of the court.
The record and proceedings in the court below show nothing which is relied on in this court for reversing the judgment until we come to the instructions asked and refused, as well as given and excepted to. The points then which have received our consideration arise on these instructions. It will be seen by the statement of the case that the court gave the third instruction asked for by the plaintiff and refused the others, and also that the court gave the six instructions asked for by the defendant.
Without minutely noticing each one of these instructions prayed for by the plaintiffs and refused, it is the opinion of this court that there is no error in refusing those not given ; nor do we consider that the court erred in giving for the defendant the first, third and fourth instructions asked for by dеfendant. As to the second instruction we think it unnecessary to give any opinion in regard to the meaning of the words used by the parties in the notice of dissolution as they appear on the face of the instrument. We need not say what in law is the meaning of the terms employed in the notice, nor is it necessary for us to declare the meaning or extent of the power given by the notice considered as a mere instrument itself. The prаctical construction of the notice given by the parties themselves, or the acts of the parties in regard to the subject matter under thе notice, may be properly looked to — properly taken into consideration, in order to ascertain what meaning the parties intended to attach to the instrument, and what power was intended by the partners to be used by T. T. Leavel. From all the acts done, and all the cirсumstances surrounding or attendant on the acts done, in regard to the dissolution and settling or winding up of the old firm, inferences may be drawn showing the meaning рractically which the partners had when the notice was given, and what was their intention when the notice was thus drawn. This practical construction given by the parties themselves is a proper guide to its meaning, and is of more importance than
We consider that the fifth instruction is calculated to mislead the jury. The proposition of law contained in it we do nоt controvert, but we consider it not warranted by the facts of the case preserved in proof. The instruction is in these words: “ If the firm of T. T. Leavel & Co. was dissolved and an arrangement made by which the new firm of T. T. & H. Leavel took all the assets of the old firm, and assumed the payment of all its debts, and аfter notice of such dissolution and arrangement the plaintiffs took for their debt against the old firm the acceptances of the new firm on bills drawn by T. T. Leavel, then the plaintiffs аre not entitled to recover of the defendant in respect to such debt.” This may well be so, but here the bills are drawn in the name of the old firm — T. T. Leavel & Co,.pin liquidation ; now, although T. T. Leavel may himself have drawn these bills, yet when the bills in the name' of the firm of T. T. Leavel & Co., in liquidation, are received by the plaintiffs, we can not say but that they may have been so received in good faith, the plaintiffs really supposing that T. T. Leavel had the power to sign the same. Then this instruction may have misled the jury, the bill not being in the name of T. T. Leavel, but of T. T. Leavel & Co., in liquidation, yet made and drawn by T. T. Leavel. The plaintiffs may have thought that he had the power to use the name, and by receiving the bills in the name of the old firm they did not intend thereby to rely alone on the new and discharge the old. The expression “ took the bills for their debt” is too loose. This may likewise have had a bad effect on the jury. (Story on Part. § 155 and note 2.) If the bills had been signed by T. T. Leavel alone, drawn by him in his own name on the new firm of T. T. & H. Leavel, and the
So much for the points arising оn the instructions. As the case has to go back, it may be well to refer to some general principles of law which may be considered applicable to a proper determination of the controversy. (.Story on Contracts, § 244, 246 ; Story on Partnership, § 156, 328 ; 1 Mc-Mullan’s Rep. 209;
There is no doubt that the law is well settled that if one partner goes out of a firm and another comes in, the debts of the old firm may, by consent of all three parties — the credi
If upon the new trial it shall appear that the drafts in suit were for indebtedness created by the new firm after the plaintiffs knew that the old firm had dissolved partnership, thеn, unless these drafts were drawn by the consent and authority of the old firm, they can not be bound by it. Let the judgment below be reversed and the cause remanded for further trial;