Hefner v. Palmer

Citations

• 67 Ill. 161

Syllabus

<p>1. Execution of note—evidence of authority to sign. In an action upon a promissory note purporting to be signed by two, the defendant, who was alone served with process, denied its execution by him, under oath, the evidence being very conflicting as to whether he signed the same, or gave his co-defendant authority to sign his name, and the court, on behalf of the plaintiff, instructed the jury that if they believed the defendant signed the note or authorized the signature, or held himself out to the community as being interested in the purchase of horses, for which the note was given, by the other maker, they should find for the plaintiff: Meld, that the latter part of the instruction was erroneous, as the only interest that would make him liable on the note not signed by him or by his authority, would be that of a partner.</p> <p>2. Partnership—mere interest in purchase does not make one a partner. The mere fact that a defendant is interested in the purchase of horses by another, will not, of itself, make him liable as a partner to one dealing with such other person.</p> <p>3. Same—liable as partner by estoppel. Where it is sought to make a defendant liable as a partner of a third person to a creditor, on the ground that he held himself out as a partner, when in fact he was not interested as such, it is necessary to prove that the plaintiff gave the credit with a knowledge that the defendant had so held himself out. This knowledge may be inferred from slight evidence.</p> <p>4. Agency—evidence of cmthority to execute note. The fact that two persons had money in bank standing to the credit of one of them, and that each had authority to check in the other’s name on such money, does not give either any authority to sign the other’s name to a promissory note; nor does the fact that the person whose name is so signed, had several times before signed notes for the other as security.</p>