
    Griener, surviving partner, &c., v. Ulerey.
    1. Partnership: admission. The execution of a promissory note, payable to a firm or corporation, is a written admission of the existence of such firm or corporation, and proof aliunde of the copartnership or corporation is not required in order to make out a ¡prima facie case for recovering on the instrument.
    
      Appeal from Benton District Court.
    
    Friday, April 13.
    Evidence: proof of partnership.' — Action by tbe plaintiff, as surviving partner, on a promissory note made by the defendant, and payable to the order of “ Thomas & Griener.” The answer does not deny the death of Thomas, but alleges that “ Thomas & Griener ” were not partners. The plaintiff introduced the note and rested. Defendant offered no evidence. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant excepted and appeals.
    
      JET. M. Martin for the appellant.
    
      W. C. Connell for the appellee.
   Dillon, J.

The defendant makes but one question: "Was the plaintiff entitled to recover upon the introduction of the note, without further proof of the exist-7 A ence 0f the partnership ?

The law is well settled, that the making of a note payable to a firm or to a corporation, is a written admission of the existence of such a firm or corporation, and proof aliunde of the copartnership or corporation is not required in order to make out a prima facie case for recovery on the instrument. Whether the admission is conclusive is a question not before us. Gordon v. Janney & Co., Morris (Iowa), 182, 183; Ang. & Ames on Corp., § 635, and authorities there cited.

It may be true, as alleged in tbe answer, tbat “Thomas & Grriener” were not general coparlners. Yet the note is an admission that witb respect to it they sustained to each other this relation.

Affirmed.  