
    Mead v. Tomlinson.
    In the Court Below,
    Benjamin Mead, only surviving partner of the late copartnership of Oliver Lockwood., deceased, and said Mead, under the firm of Lockwood &? Mead, Plaintiffs ; Abraham Tomlinson, Defendant.
    
    An action is not maintainable in favour of a copartnership, on a written instrument, entered into by one of the partners, in his own name only.
    THIS action was brought upon certain covenants in a charter-party.
    The plaintiff averred, that at the time of executing the charter-party, he and Lockwood were merchants in company ; that they were jointly interested in the property, and bound by the contracts, of each ; that all business transacted by either, under whatever name, was, in fact, transacted on their joint account, and for the equal benefit of both ; and particularly, that this charter-party was entered into by Lockwood, with the defendant and William Coggshall, [since deceased] for the joint account and benefit of himself and the plaintiff, which fact was well known to the defendant and Coggs-hall.
    
    
      1803.
    The defendant, after having prayed oyer of the ter-party, and set it out, from which it appeared, that it was signed by Lockwood only, pleaded in abatement, alleging, that the charter-party was entered into by the defendant and Coggshall, on the one part, and by Lockwood, on the other, and by no other person, or persons, whatsoever ; and that the suit, therefore, could be brought only in the name of Lochvced7# administrator, and not in the name of the plaintiff, as surviving partner.
    The plaintiff replied, affirming over the allegations in declaration respecting the copartnership.
    The defendant demurred, and the Superior Court abated the process.
    The plaintiff brought a writ of error on that judgment.
    Mills,(of New-Haven) and Smith, (of New-Haven) for the plaintiff,
    argued, that the copartnership being established, and it being shewn, that the acts of each were binding upon both, enough was shewn to entitle the plaintiff to his action. They cited Bacon v. Sand-ford, 
      
      lloare v. Derives, 
      
       . Willet v. Chambers, 
      
      Harrison v. Jackson, 
      Coope v. Bare, 
      
       and Arden v. Sharpe, 
      
    
    Edzvards, (of New-Haven) contended,
    that this being an action of covenant, it could not be supported by- Alead, Oft an instrument executed solely by Lockivood. However the rule may be, in the case of actions against dormant’' partners, this action is not maintainable. The contrary doctrine would destroy the individuality of partners, and render them incapable of a separate obligation. He cited the case of Ripley v. lihigxkurii, 
       decided by this Court, in June, 1801.
    
      
      
         3 Lev. 258. 1 Slum. 20. S Mod. 321. 2 Soli. 440.
    
    
      
      
         {bfnimg. 371 [355],
    
    
      
       ⅛. 814.
    
    
      
      
         7 Term Sep. 207.
      
    
    
      
      
         I. Bl $?.
      
    
    
      
      
         2 Esp. Rep. 324.
    
    
      
      
         This was an action on a promissory note, executed by Stanley, m his name only, payable to Kingsbury. The declaration stated, that* Riplpy and Stanley were merchants in company, under the firm of Ripley & Stanley ,• that Stanley was the acting partner ; that the company were indebted to the plaintiff an book ; and that Stanley, as their agent, executed the note, to secure payment of the debt. Stanley suffered a default. Ripley pleaded the general issue, and went to trial to the jury. The plaintiff obtained a verdict. Ripley moved in arrest of judgment, for the insufficiency of the declaration. The Superior Court adjudged the declaration sufficient. On a writ, of error to the Supreme Court of Errors, that judgment w*is reversed.
      
    
   By the whole Court,

The judgment was affirmed.  