
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    MAY, 1811.
    Lamb v. Irby Singleton and Co.
    The plaintiff sued on a promissory note of hand, given by one of two joint partners in trade, in the copartnership name, or firm, after the. dissolution of the partnership, but for a debt due by the partnership, contracted during its existence. These circumstances appearing in evidence, and exception being taken, it was adjudged that it supported the action against both partners as a partnership contract; there being no evidence that the plaintiff had special notice of the dissolution of the partnership, nor that notice had been generally given thereof in any gazette, though it appeared to be a fact well known in the neighborhood of the parties.
    Motion for a new trial. Assumpsit on a note of hand, tried before Grisike, J., in Sumter District Court. The defendants, Irby Singleton, and Richard Haynesworth, severed in their pleas of non assumpsit. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant had been partners in trade, under the firm of Irby Singleton & Co., but that the partnership was dissolved some lime before the note in question was given. It was generally known, in the neighborhood of the parties, at the time of the note’s being given, that the partnership was atan end, though there had not been any general notice thereof in the gazette. The note was given by I. Singleton, in the name of the firm, and dated after the dissolution of the partnership. The note was given in the liquidation of an account., which existed between the partnership and the plantiff antecedent to the dissolution of the partnership. It was objected at the trial, that one partner cannot bind his copartner, after the dissolution of the partnership, and therefore the defendant, Haynesworth, was not liable. The judge charged the jury to the contrary, and the verdict was found for the. plaintiff.
    On the motion in this court, Richardson, for the defendant, being absent, Blanding, for the plaintiff, was heard. He cited 1 Com. on Contr. 324. Partners must give notice to all who trusted them as partners. Gazette notice is not sufficient. Vin. Abr. 16 vol, P. L. 12, page 244. Peake’s Cases N. P. 154, unless where there has been no previous dealings between the parties. 1 Espi Rep. 371.
   Per curiam.

Smith, J.

The partnership was indebted to the plaintiff, and he had, at all events, his remedy against both partners to be paid out of the partnership funds. It was not proved that he had particular notice of the dissolution of the copartnership. Justice has been done. It would answer no end of justice to turn the party round. See 1 H. Bl. 155. 1 Esp. Rep. 371.

Note. See Wats, on Partnership, 378. 4 Johns. 224. A pavtner cannot bind his copartner after dissolution of the partnership ¡and; with respect to antecedent debts contracted during the partnership, the -power to receive payment, and give discharges, rests on the same principle with that of joint obligees, or payees, of a note not otherwise connected as partners. 2 Johns. 300. 3 Esp. Cases, 108. 3 John. 536. After partnership dissolved, one partner cannot bind another.

Motion rejected.  