
    Jacob Martin vs. William Walton & Co.
    It is not necessary that a special notice of áissolution should be given tfc persons who are accustomed to deal with a firm. And it is a question for the jury to decide whether there was such evidence of the dissolution of the co-partnership as to induce them to believe that the party knew it.
    Notice published in a Gazette is conclusive on those who have had no dealing with the co-partnership; but as to such as have had dealings it shall,not be so considered, unless under circumstances it appear satisfactorily to the jury that it operated as a notice.'
    An authority to one of a co-partnership to settle the affairs, receive and pay the debts, does not warrant him to draw a bill, or give a note in the co-párlnership’s name.
    This was an action tried before Mr, Justice Colcock, on an indorsed note by the holder against the maker. The note was in fhes,e words: “ $ 3,(300, Charleston, 15th May, 1815. Sixty days after date, we promise to pay to the u order of John P. McNeile, three thousand dollars, value M received. Endorsed John P. McNeile.
    
    (“ Signed,) Wm. Walton 6? Co. per John Walton”
    
    It appeared in Evidence that -John and William Walton bad been co-partners, and that the co-partnership had beets, dissolved. To prove which, a printed advertisement in a paper of the city, under date of the 13th April, 1813, was produced, in which there was a notice of the dissolution of the co-partnership, and a reference to John Walton, as the person authorized to settle the concerns of the co-partner--
    
      Mr. Beard.; who was an officer of the South-Carolina Bank, proved that there had been dealings between the plaintiff and William &P John Walton, and William & John Walton and McNeile, and that the plaintiff had demands against both, John William Walton, and against Mr. John.Walten and McNeile. He also stated that the plaintiff had been an officer in the same bank with him in 1810 and 1813, and he was almost certain that this was a co-partnership debt — that is, that this note was given (as a renewal,) for a debt which had been due to the plaintiff by William Walton & Coi The plaintiff anil John cS? William Walton were residents of the city.
    The defendant’s counsel contended that the note was drawn after the dissolution of the có-partnership, and without authority, and therefore could not bind the partnership.
    ■ The plaintiff’s counsel contended, that as it was proved that thefe were dealings between the partnership and the plaintiff, previous to the* date of the alleged dissolution, it ought.to have been proved that there was a special notice given to the plaintiff of the dissolution. That the general notice could only affect those who had not had dealings with the co-partnership, and that the form of signature was no evidence of the dissolution of the co-partnership, as had been contended for by defendant’s counsel.
    The Judge charged the jury that it was for them to decide, whether there was such evidence of the dissolution of the co-partnership as to induce them to believe that plaintiff knew it; that he inclined to think there was.
    The jury found a verdict for defendant.
    A motion was now made for a new trial, on the ground thatthe verdict was contrary to law and evidence, inasmuch as it was not proved, as the law requires, that special notice to the plaintiff was given by the defendants of the dissolution of the co-partnership; the plaintiff having had previous dealings with the concern.
    2d. The form of the signature to the note did not authorize the jury to infer that the plaintiff knew it was not a partnership note.
    
      3d. There were no other nn.umsf.mces from which the-jury could infer that .tin plaintiff had notice of the dissolution ol the partnership.
   Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the Court)

There is no doubt that if Ihe note in this case was given after the dissolution of the co-partnership, and tht plain • tiff had notice of it, that the firm are not bound. An authority to one of a co-partnership to settle the affairs, receive and pay the debts, does not warrant him-to draw a bill, or give a note in the co-partnership’s name, (Chitty on Bills, Story's edit. p. 35.) The only question then is, whether the notice in this case was sufficient. The rule contended for by the plaintiff’s counsel, of a special notice to each person who has had dealings with the copartnership, is too broadly laid down: it cannot be supported either by reason or authority. If the dealings had been extensive, it is not saying too mneiff to say that it would be impossible. All that is meant in laying down a rule is this, that the public notice in the Gazette shall be conclusive on those who have had no dealings with the co-partnership. But as to such as have had dealings, it shall not be so considered, unless, under circumstances, it appear satisfactorily to the jury, that it operates as a notice to the party. The rule can not jmean any thing so absurd, as that one who has had dealings with a co-partner-* ship, may not read their advertisement in a newspaper, as well as one who never had such dealings. Reason would seem to say in such a case, that after the long established practice of advertising the dissolution of co-partnerships, those who would be most affected by such dissolutions, would be most apt to look to the usual source of information on the subject. But on the present occasion, when we look to the situation of the parties, the length of time from the advertisement to the date of the note, the nature-; of the transaction as proved by the plaintiff himself, the-form of the signature, combined with the notice in the Gazette, there is no room to doubt but that the plaintiff knew of tbe dissolution oí the co-partnership. The pap* ties both lit ed in the city of Charleston. The advertisement announcing the dissolution of the co-partnership was dated 3d April, 1813, and the note the 15th May, 1815.— Upwards of two years had been afforded to the plaintiff to acquire this knowledge. When we look to the nature of the transaction, it is conclusive. The defendants were indebted to plaintiff for large advances of cash. It was in the nature of a bank transaction; the notes to be renewed every sixty days, and the note is signed per John Walton. Can it be believed that the plaintiff would be ignorant of so important a fact in relation to persons so largely indebted, and that too for the loan of money ? Is not the mode of signature unusual ? It certainly is; for there are but two ways of signing a copartnership's name, one by'writing the name itself, and another by signing the name of the co-partner who makes the note, and saying, for himself and the firm. And Mr. Chilly says, one of these should be pursued, as otherwise it might be doubtful whether it would bind the partner. (Chitty on Bills, p. 36.)

But there can be .no doubt that the circumstances mentioned, together with the advertisement, were proper evidence to be submitted to the jury to prove the fact of the dissolution of the có-partnership, and the knowledge of it by the plaintiff; and as they have deemed them satisfactory, the Court will not disturb the verdict.

The motion is dismissed.

Justices Nott, Johnson, Huger and Gantt, concurred.  