Daniel v. Lance

Citations

• 29 Pa. Super. 454
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 356

Syllabus

<p>Partnership — Promissory notes — Action—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action on promissory notes against a partnership where plaintiff proves that one of the defendants, who was the only defendant served, represented at the time the notes were given that he was a member of the firm, and the plaintiff also testifies that the defendant had transacted business for the firm with him, the notes are properly received in evidence.</p> <p>Partnership — Registration—Action—Act of April 14, 1851, sec. 13, P. L. 612.</p> <p>Where a partnership has not registered in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act of April 14, 1851, P. L. 612, it cannot complain in a suit against it that the name of one of the members was omitted or that the names of persons not members were included as parties defendant.</p> <p>Partnership — Promissory notes — Notice—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action upon promissory notes against a partnership, the only defendant who was served admitted that he had been a member of the firm at the time the dealings with the plaintiff had their inception, and that he continued to be a partner until a certain date, that he then sold out his interest in the partnership and notified the plaintiff of that fact, and that he subsequently carried on and managed the business of the firm as the attorney in fact of his former partners. It appeared that there was no change of names under which the partnership carried on its business. The plaintiff denied that he had any notice that the defendant had sold out his interest. Held, that the liability of defendant Was dependent upon whether the plaintiff had been notified, and that this question was for the jury.</p> <p>In the above case plaintiff testified that he saw the defendant who was served, sign the notes in suit, and that he received them from him. The defendant offered to prove that the notes had: been signed by another partner, and delivered to the plaintiff. Held, that this offer should have been admitted as bearing