
    BUTTON & FREEMAN v. HAMPSON, PARKISON AND CAROTHERS.
    Partnership bond — one seal — pleading—writ of error refused.
    A sealed obligation signed in the partnership name with one seal, is the obligation only of the partner signing; the seal is his only.
    The allegation in such cases, sealed with their seal, does not mean sealed by each with his seal.
    Allegations in pleading are to be construed most strongly against the pleader.
    Application for a writ of error by the plaintiffs. The record of the Common Pleas shows a declaration in covenant against the defendants, upon a contract entered into by them as co-partners; sealed with their seal, and signed by one of them in the partnership name of J. H. & Co. To this there was a general demurrer, on which the Court of Common Pleas rendered judgment for the defendants.
    
      *H. H. Hunter, for the application.
    
      Stillwell, contra.
   WRIGHT, J.

The obligation declared upon was executed by one of three partners, in the partnership name. Such instrument obliges only the person who signs and seals it — it is his act and deed, and not that of his co-partners. It is suggested that the allegation, sealed with their seal, is to be understood as charging that the instrument was sealed by each individual using a common seal. The rule is to construe pleadings most strongly against the pleader To subject this declaration to that rule, would make the allegation, that the seal was a common, not an individual seal. Co-partners, unless incorporated, can have no common seal. This instrument is not the joint instrument of the defendants; but only that of the co-partner who signed and sealed it. A case might exist where the individual seal of one of several obligers was .used by each, which would be good against each, because when so used, it is the seal of each, but tha,t is not this case; 1 Black. R. 103. The writ of error is refused, (See infra, p. 118.)  