Manning, Stimpson & Co. v. Hays

Le Grand, C. J., delivered the opinion of this court. This action was instituted against the appellants to recover the amount of a promissory note', dated the 23rd May 1850, at six months, for three thousand dollars, drawn and signed by the appellant Samuel Manning, in favor of “Manning, Stimpson & Co.,” and endorsed by them in the handwriting of the said Samuel Manning, and also endorsed by Joseph C. Manning. The appellee is the holder of the note. The plaintiff below proved the handwriting of Samuel Manning, and the co-partnership of the appellants, under the style and name of Manning, Stimpson and MacTavish.

The note was protested for non-payment and notice of the same, given to the appellants by handing, notice of protest to Samuel Manning. On this state of facts* at the trial below, the appellants asked the court to instruct the jury, that if they should find from the evidence that the" signature of the note offered in-evidence, is of the proper'handwriting of Samuel Manning, and that the endorsement, Manning, Stimpson & Co., upon the said note, is also of the proper handwriting of the said Samuel Manning,, then the jury must find their verdict for the defendants, upon the assumption that the transaction in question was the private transaction of the said Samuel Manning, there being no evidence.to show that the matter was known to his co-partners, or either'of them, or that it was given’ or negotiated on co-partnership’account. This prayer the court refused and we think properly.- Although it is clear that one partner cannot bind his co-partner in regard to a matter which is exclusively his own* yet the fact of its being his private business must affirma-* ⁹ lively appear by some fact known, or properly deducible from circumstances which ought to inform a prudent person of the true nature of the transaction. He has the right to sign the same of the firm, and the general rule is, that where a note is proved to have been signed by one member of an existing firm, in the partnership name, the legal presumption is, that it was given for a joint indebtedness in the regular course of partnership dealings, until the contrary is shown on the part. of the defence.

Thurston vs. Lloyd, 4 Md., 288 , and the authorities there relied upon. We can perceive no difference in principle, between the right to sign a note in the partnership name, and to endorse one in the same name. The note in the case