Sibley & Co. v. Young & Napier

Citations

• 26 S.C. 415
• 2 S.E. 314
• 1887 S.C. LEXIS 56

Syllabus

<p>1. One partner is not bound by a sealed instrument executed by'his copai’tner in the name of the firm, unless it is shown by direct testimony or from circumstances that he had previously authorized such an instrument, or had subsequently ratified it.</p> <p>2. Where an instrument, as e. g., a single bill, requires a seal, the seal ■ cannot be treated as surplusage ; nor can a partner be held liable on a sealed note executed by his copartner because that he would be liable if the seal had been omitted.</p> <p>3. This court cannot take notice of the effect of the laws of another State upon a contract in suit here, unless those laws be properly proved.</p> <p>4. There is no legal presumption that a partner has authority to bind his copartner by a sealed instrument. Whether there was previous authority or subsequent ratification, is a question of fact for the jury.</p> <p>5. A partner does not ratify a sealed note in the firm-name, executed by his copartner, by acknowledging his liability thereon, unless he knew at the time that it was a sealed note.</p> <p>6. Where action is brought against a firm on sealed notes, calling them promissory notes, an amendment alleging indebtedness on the account for which the notes were given does not substantially change the claim, and should be allowed.</p> <p>7. A refusal to permit an amendment of the complaint is not ordinarily appealable; but -where the refusal is based upon a legal ground, it is.</p> <p>8. Plaintiff’s right to amend should not be affected by the fact that his motion was made after non-suit ordered, and not renewed after the order of non-suit was vacated at the same term.</p>