
    Charles Irby vs. John W. Vining.
    it is sufficient notice of the dissolution of a copartnership, if such circumstances be proved, as leave no rational doubt that the party knew ®f the dissolution.
    Marlborough district, October Term, 1823,
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt.
    
    THIS was an action brought on a note of hand, signed Vining 4’ Wilson, and dated 3rd April, 1820. The note was subscribed in the hand writing of Wilson, and it was admitted that the defendant and Wilson had been merchants trading under the firm of Vining 8y Wilson, and that the plaintiff had been one of their customers.
    
      G. jB. Whitfield and B. Carloss were examined by the defendant, and staffed that in the months of April and May, 1818, Charles T. Stewart, Vining, the defendant, and Wilson, entered into copartnership under the firm of Steioart, Wilson 8y Co. at the same place. That they had no knowledge of any separate firm after-wards existing under the firm of Vining 8y Wilson. The defendant then offered to prove that the plaintiff was a customer of Stewart, Wilson 8y Co’s, was frequently at their store, lived in the same neighborhood, and that an advertisement was posted up at the house lately occupied by Vining 8y Wilson, and then by Stewart, Wilson 4’ 
      Co. stating that the copartnership of Pining fy Wilson had dissolved. The presiding Judge held that nothing less than personal notice to the plaintiff of the dissolution of the copartnership of Pining fy Wilson, would be sufficient to discharge the defendant from his liability, and rejected the testimony, and decreed for the plaintiff. A new trial was moved for on the ground that the presiding Judge misstated the law in determining- that nothing less than actual and personal notice was sufficient.
    
      Campbell, for the motion.
    
      Ervin, contra.
   Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the court:

In the case of Jacob Martin vs. Wm. Walton & Co. (1 McCords Rep. 16,) and the case of the Bank of So. Carolina vs. Humphreys & Mathews, (Ibid, 388,) the court have determined that that which is tantamount to a personal notice, shall be sufficient. If such circumstances are proved as leave no rational doubt on the mind that one knew of the dissolution of the copartnership ; this is certainly as satisfactory as direct and positive proof. It is in fact, all that is meant by the rule ; for where a copartnership had existed for a long time, and an extensive business carried on, it would be difficult if not impossible to send to each customer direct and personal notice. The evidence, therefore, should have been received, and if it had not been satisfactory, the decree would have remained.

The motion is granted.

Justices Johnson, Huger, Richardson and Nott, concurred.  