
    Hunt v. Jucks & London, surviving partners of the company of Jucks & Co.
    General reputation is not sufficient to ehwtye a particular person as partner ; there must be some confession of his, or some ov.-rt ac.t to prove it. When a pets m indebted to another, knows what sum he is to pay, and when he is to pay it, he must pay interest.
    
      Bunbebbin hud purchased the tobacco of the Plaintiff”, anti had m.t paid for it. Bunbebbin wits dead, and his estate supposed difficult to be come at — whereupon the suit was instilóte.'! against these Defendants. Toe proof of tito partnership depended opon Míe deposition of Mr. Hooper, who deposed, that about the ’hue of the purchase, there was sure, a company as that of Jacks & Co. that he was a p tríos ¡ hhm-.eíf, and also Banbebbiv & London, ami another whose name he moni tout'd ; and tii.it to the best of his remembrance, come of the partner’s of this company pnnh .sed a quantify of tobacco of the Plaintiff for the romp uiy 4 idler '.vas produced written by' London or Dnnbsltbin to the Pl-tin'iff, stating the account, winch Mas in die name of Jacks & Co. It informed the. Plaintiff that Jucks had the money to pay the balance of the account ; and th=* Counsel for the Plaintiff insisted this tender had been made upon this evidence. The court left it to the jury to say, whether such a company had existed, and whether the Defendants had been partners. The court informed them, that (he other depositions in the cause, stating a .e-mierai reputation of the partnership, were not sufficient to charge .lucks as-a partner— vhere must be some confession of his, or some overt act proving the name ; but if they '.ould rely upon the aectt-raev of Mr. Hooper’s remembrance, r-s lie luid spoken of it | or if they believed Jacks earned the letter and the money mentioned in it, and knew how the account inclosed was stated, that would amount to an admission of iiis.b’'-ing it partner j mid in that rase, they should find for the Plaintiff, o herwi’se for the Defendant. — -They found for the Plaintiff, anti ¡siso, pursuant to toe charge of one of the court, gUeu a few days before, who stan d the Mile to he, that wherever th >! ■’itnr knows precisely what he *’s to pax, and when he *•< to pay it, that the jury might give interesi by way of damages, if they thought 'proper. They did in this case allow damages to the amount of the interest on the principal sum, byway of addition to the principal damages, and it was not complained of on the other side, and the Plaintiff had judgment.
   Note. — Vide State v. John G. & Thomas Blount, ante 4.  