
    Bank of South-Carolina vs. Humphreys & Mathews.
    ,One partner, after dissolution, cannot bind the other by drawing a note in th'e co-partnership name', unless he has a particular power vested in him fpr.,that purpose.
    Nor 05m one of í» firm, which is dissolved; renew a note in the bank, in the co-partnership name ; although,' during the co-partnership, the firm had written a letter to the President and' Directors, requesting" to b,e permitted to renew their note, 'until the expiration of a certain time, during which time this renewal was given, but subsequent to the dissolution. It was Held not a power given to affix the name to ú note of the partnership after dissolution.
    Notice of a dissolution of co-partnership, published in a Gazette, which was taken by the bank, was Held a sufficient notice to the bank; though tile defendant had had dealings with the bank.
    Tried before the City Court, January Term, 1821. As-sumpsit upon a promissory rióte for g 340.
    THE question in this case was, whether the note declared upon was such as under the circumstances would bind úie partnership ¡ The note was admitted to have been signed by Humphreys, one of the partners. It was subscribed “ Benjamin Mathews and self, by R. ffi. Hum-phreys” and dated on the 26th of April, 1820. The dissolution of the partnership was published in the Courier and the City Gazette, on the — day of March, 1820.
    . The plaintiff’s counsel produced a letter directed to the President-and Directors of the South-Carolina Bank, da- ■ ted on the 3d'June, 1819^ subscribed “ Humphreys Mathexvs.” This letter contained the following paragraph. “ We only require that you will permit us to renew our notes in full for nine months, and pay the interest only, and offering the same endorsers who now are on our paper, and at the expiration of that time, we engage to take at least 10 per cent, and as muclpniore as possible. Should we be able to commence paying the above ten per' cent, before the expiration of the time specified, we will do so.” '
    Mr. Stoll, (a clerk in the bank,) on the part of the plaintiff, proved, that in June, 1819, the original note, on a re- ■ newal of which- this action was brought, was due by the defendants to the bank ; that the original amount of it was ¡34-2$ ; that it was renewed in full in July, September and November, 1819 ; and that in Jan. 1820, it was also renewed in full. In March, it was reduced to $380, in April to $340 ; and that the same endorsers continued upon the note during all this time. The witness said he saw the advertisement of the dissolution 6f the partnership in the Courier and City Gazette, and that these papers were taken by the bank.
    Captain Jervey, for the defendant,
    stated, that during the existence of the firm he had taken receipts from them, which were always signed “ Humphreys C? Alathexvs.”
    
    He never saw any of their notes.
    The defendants contended that this note was only obligatory upon Mr. Humphreys, the signer of it; as it was given after the dissolution of the .partnership, when Mr. Humphreys had no'authority to bind the firm; that the up-usual manner in which the note was drawn, sufficiently shewed that it had been executed after the dissolution of the partnership, independently of which, a notice to that e£« feci had been published in the Gazettes of the-city.
    The plaintiff’s counsel argued, that the letter produced by him, amounted to a'precedent authority in Humphreys to draw this note; that during the existence of the partnership, the letter of the 3d of June had been written; by which the members of it were bound, as the conditions contained in the letter had been acquiesced in by the bank. That'the manner of subscribing the note was not illegal, nor did it manifest that the partnership' was dissolved j and that the bank had never had any legal notice of the dissolution ; because, where there had been previous dealings between the parties, a mere publication in the Gazette was not sufficient.
    The Recorder stated to the jury, that after the dissolution'of a partnership, the general rule was, that one partner could not bind another by signing the partnership name to a note, and that to render a note so signed obliga- ■ tory, an authority must be vested in the subscribing partner. He did not think the letter produced by the plaintiff was sufficient. ,It was to be considered in the same light as any other contract entered into during the existence of the partnership ; which would be binding accord- ‘ ing to its nature, and for a breach of which, an action might be supported for damages, if any had been sustained ; but that a contract of this description was very different from a power giving an authority to affix the name of a partnérship-to a note drawn subsequently to the dissolution of the firm. He thought also, that notice of the dissolution of the partnership was sufficiently established, as it had been proved that the Gazettes in which the advertisement had been published, were taken by the plaintiff, which he regarded as tantamount to express notice.
    The jury found a verdict for t!;e defendants ; and notiefc was given that a new trial would he moved for, upon th.y inclosed grounds.
   Mr. Justice'Colcock

delivered the\opinion of the court.

It would be superfluous to add any thing to the observations of the Recorder. The court unanimously concur in the view which he has taken óf both the law and facts. The motion is therefore dismissed, 1

Justices Richardson, Huger and Gantt, concurred.  