
    Saunders v. Bentley.
    In an action against two persons.alleged to be partners, on a contract signed in the partnership name, service upon one is a service upon the partnership, and sufficient as to each member of the firm.
    
      Appeal from the Henry District Court.
    
    Saturday, June 11.
    Tins action was commenced against James Craig and George W. Bentley, and claims that they were partners by th.e name and style of Craig & Bentley, and as such, with one Burris, made their promissory note to plaintiffs. The notice was returnable to the April term, 1858, and was served on Craig in March, of that year. The record also shows that the same notice was served on Bentley, in May, after-wards. Bentley made default. Craig answered, setting up, among other things, that the note sued on never was executed by the firm, or by any person authorized to sign their name. The cause was heard at the August term, 1858, and judgment rendered against Bentley by default, and in favor of Craig. Bentley appeals..
    
      Hall, HarHngtonJk Hall, for the appellant.
    
      A. H JBereman, for the appellant.
   Wright, C. J.

The error assigned is, that Bentley never was served, and that the court below had no jurisdiction over his person, so as to render judgment against him by default. Service upon Craig, (and this was unquestionably good), was a service upon the partnership ; and hence, sufficient as to each member of the firm. Code, section 1728. By this service, the'court obtained jurisdiction over Bentley, as well as Craig, and it was not lessened, or taken away, by the subsequent unnecessary reading of the same notice by the sheriff to Bentley.

Judgment affirmed.  