Easter v. Farmers' National Bank

Citations

• 57 Ill. 215

Syllabus

<p>1. Partnership—contracts in the firm name entered into by one of the partners after dissolution, whether binding on the others—notice of dissolution. As a general rule, after a dissolution of a partnership neither partner can make a new contract in the firm name binding on the others, without express authority, and no note, draft or acceptance so executed in the name of the firm will be valid if the party with whom the contract is made had notice of the dissolution.</p> <p>2. Same—authority of one partner to use the firm name after dissolution— how may be giren. Written authority, to authorize one of the partners to use the firm name after the partnership is dissolved, so as to be binding on all, is not required—it ma)r be given by parol. And there are cases which go to the extent of holding that such authority ma.y be inferred from the acts of the parties.</p> <p>3. Evidence—of such authority. In a suit on a promissory note, executed by one partner, in the firm name, after the dissolution of the firm, it was held, the mere fact that the other partners had for some reason paid certain other notes executed by him in the firm name after the dissolution, did not of itself furnish sufficient evidence of authority in such partner to execute the note in question.</p> <p>4. Notice—what constitutes. Where the president of a bank had knowledge of the dissolution of a partnership: Held., that notice to him constituted notice to the bank.</p> <p>5. Pabthebship—unauthorized use of firm, name after dissolution—ratification of. Where one partner, after the dissolution of the partnership, uses the firm name without authority, his act may be subsequently ratified by the others, and the contract will be as binding on them as though their consent had been previously given for that purpose.</p>