
    Black v. Savory & Al.
    The owners of a steamboat transporting passengers and carrying merchandise for hire are commercial partners and maybe sued individually or a portion of them, for a debt due by tho boat, without joining all the parties in the action. — 4 L. 47, and cases there noted.
    After dissolution of the partnership the partners should be sued in the parish or place of their domicil, and only those residing in the same parish can be joined. — 13 L. 422; 9 It. 45.
    The acknowledgment of masters of steamboats, of the correctness of bills presented for supplies or other things furnished the boat, are binding on the owners. — 14 L. 492.
    Appeal from the court of the fourth district, for the parish of Iberville, the judge thereof presiding.
    This is an action on a grocer’s account for supplies furnished the steamboat Alpha. The account is acknowledged to he correct and just by King, the master and one of the owners of the boat.
    The suit was instituted in the parish of Iberville, where the defendants Savory and Marshall, two of the owners of said boat, reside ; and it is admitted there are other owners and partners residing elsewhere. The plaintiff prays judgment for the amount of his account against the defendants in solido.
    
    The defendants excepted to the action because all the owners and partners were not joined; and that the suit cannot he maintained against a part of them only. This exception being overruled, the defendants pleaded the general issue; and aver that the demand is not just; that the boat had already been seized and sold to satisfy the debts and claims due by it and the partnership long since dissolved. That King, who commanded the boat, had no authority to admit the plaintiff’s account. They pray that the suit he dismissed.
    There was a hill of exceptions taken to the admission of the account as acknowledged by King, in evidence, as being only secondary.
    There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.
    
      Edwards, for the plaintiff,
    urged the affirmance of the judgment. [86]
    
      Labauve, for the defendants and appellants,
    insisted that the action could not he maintained against two only of the owners or partners, where it was shown and admitted that there were at least four, who should have been joined. See 18 La. Rep. 422.
    2. The court erred in receiving the admissions or acknowledgments of King relative to the account. These were only secondary evidence. The account should have been proved by positive testimony.
    3. The plaintiff has failed to show by legal evidence that this pretended account was for the partnership, or articles furnished for its use or benefit.
   Garland, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, who is a grocer in the parish of Iberville, brought suit against Savory and Marshall, alleging that they, with King, Mays, and others were owners of a steamboat called the Alpha, to which he had furnished supplies and sold a quantity of provisions, liquors and other articles amounting to $327 07. The account is acknowledged in writing by J. A. King, one of the owners and master of the boat, to be correct. The defendants admit in their answer the partnership was dissolved in the latter part of February, 1840, by the seizure and sale of the boat. They except to this suit and say that it cannot be maintained, as all the owners of the boat are not made parties, although the plaintiff knew who they were and has named them in his petition. The court overruled the exception because the defendants had not in it disclosed the names of all the partners. This the defendants say they were not bound to do, as the plaintiff had named different persons as being owners and was bound to join them in the action.

[87] The judge of the district court was correct in overruling the exception, although the reasons he gave for it wore not perhaps the best that could have been assigned. It has been held on various occasions that the owners of steamboats transporting passengers, produce and merchandise for hire were commercial partners, and, as such, jointly and severally bound for the debts that may be contracted on account of the boat. 4 La. Rep. 107; 13 Id. 281, and 14 Id. 491, 303; Each may therefore be sued for the debt and held responsible. During the existence of a partnership, all the partners may bo sued in the parish where they conduct their business, although one or more of them may be domiciliated in a different one. 13 La. Rep. 424; Code of Practice, art. 165. But we are not prepared to say after a partnership is dissolved, the partners could be so sued. It appears by the admission of the defendants, that this suit was instituted after the partnership was dissolved; we are therefore of opinion that the action can be maintained.

On the trial of the case, the plaintiff offered in evidence an account in detail, with an acknowledgment in writing at the foot thereof by J. H. King, captain of the boat and one of the owners, that it was correct, and also offered to prove by a witness that King had signed said acknowledgment in his presence, admitted the account to be just, that the articles were for the use of the boat, and expressed his regret he had not money to pay it. To this the defendants objected, saying the evidence was only secondary and not binding on them. The judge admitted the testimony and the defendants excepted ; we think he did not err. Masters of steamboats are the agents of the owners in all matters relating to their management and purchasing necessary supplies, and contracts made or acknowledgments of indebtedness for such purposes by them, are binding on the owners. 14 La. Rep. 492.

[88] The acknowledgment and promise to pay, was made before the boat was sold, and the partnership was bound by the acts of one of the partners and the agent of all.

The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed with costs.  