Durant v. Rogers

Citations

• 87 Ill. 508

Syllabus

<p>1. Partnership—liability of firm for tort of one partner. If a member of a firm, in the.due course of the business of the partnership, commits a tort or wrongful act, by seizing and taking the property of another, and the same is appropriated to the use and benefit of the firm, thereby increasing its assets, the other partners will be liable for the same.</p> <p>2. A fraudulent act by one partner, or deceit practiced by him, done within the scope of his general partnership authority, will make the other partners liable.</p> <p>3. Same—when liable for money paid to me of firm. Where property of a partnership was levied upon under a judgment against a part of the firm, for a trespass committed by the active and managing members, and the latter, to save the property, procured the plaintiff to unite with them in an appeal bond, whereby he was compelled to pay the judgment, it was held, that each member of the firm became liable to him for the amount so paid to their use, whether they all united in the appeal or not, and that no proof of a promise to pay on the part of one of them not sued, and who did not. join in the appeal, was necessary, as the law implied a promise, and that in such case the validity of the judgment appealed from was wholly immaterial.</p> <p>4. Witness. Where two witnesses testify directly opposite each other, the jury may regard the surrounding circumstances, and give credence to one over the other.</p> <p>5. Former decision. In the ruling of the court in this case in 71 Ill. 122, that where two witnesses give contradictory testimony, and neither is impeached, and nothing to strengthen the testimony of either; there is no preponderance, the principle of law is stated too broadly.</p>