
    H. Loomis & Co. vs. Pearson & M'Michael.
    
      One partner, after dissolution, executed a note in the partnership name and accepted-service of a writ in the same way,, on which udgment was obtained by default: execution levied on the goods of the other partner, which were sold: one term intervened between the levy and the motion to set aside proceedings; which motion was granted.
    
    This was a motion to set aside the proceedings, so far as regarded M£Michael. The following facts appeared in evidence: D. W. Pearson, one of the firm of Pearson Sz, M‘Michael, signed the name of the firm, after its dissolution, to a promissory note', drawn in favor of the plaintiffs. H. Loomis f Co. who issued a writ thereon, the service of which was accepted by said Pearson in the name of the firm. Judgment- by default was'entered up, 17ih April, 1823, and a fi. fa. lodged with sheriff, who levied on a negro boy, the property of M‘Michael,. by virtue of tiiis and another execution in favor of D. Rumph. The sheriff sold said negro, 1st Monday in January, 1824. M‘Michad knew nothing of these proceedings till the levy was made. One court intervened between the making of the levy and the present application.
    The presiding judge refused the motion, on the ground, that MlMichael’s delay in making this application was a waive? of the objection as to irregularity.'
    
      To reverse -which decision the defendant appealed; be» cause the proceedings was utterly void, and there was no such laches on the part of said defendant, after he had notice, as Would amount to a waiver of irregularity.
    
      T. W. Glover, for motion.
    
      J. M. Felder, contra.
   Tlio opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Colcock.

In this case two questions are presented for determination: 1st. whether one copartner can bind another by making a note after the dissolution of the copartnership: 2d. whether one co-partner can enter an appearance for the other.

It is unnecessary to go into any reasoning upon either point, for both have been solemnly adjudicated by this court.

In the case of the Bank of South-Carolina, vs. Humphreys & Mathews, 1 M'Cord, 388, it was decided that after the dissolution of a copartnership, one partner cannot bind the other, by drawing a note in the name of the firm, without a special power .given to him for that purpose. And in the cases of Keckley, vs. Keen and Perry, decided in Charleston, May term, 1822, and that of Haslet and others vs. Street and others, 2 M'Cord, p. 311, it was determined that one copart-ner cannot authorise an appearance for the other.

On either ground the motion must be granted and the judgment set aside: the objection of the defendant is not to mere irregularity, which can be cured by pleading, but it extends to the whole proceeding, which as to him is absolutely void. The motion is granted.

Richardson, JYott, Huger, and Johnson, Justices, con-.ciirred.  