Tate v. Clements

Citations

• 16 Fla. 339

Syllabus

<p>1. A purchase by a managing partner, engaged ip carrying on the business of a copartnership established for the purpose of running a sawmill, of a quantity of chopped corn, the partner ordering it representing that it is required for the business of the firm, and proof that the corn was actually used in the business of the firm, is sufficient to establish the presumption that the purchase was made in the regular course of the partnership business, and to charge the partners with the indebtedness.</p> <p>%. A promise by a member of a late copartnership, made after dissolution and before a suit is barred by the statute of limitations, to pay a partnership debt, will not prevent the running of the statute so as to estop the other partner from availing himself of the defence of the statute as against the original cause of action; and this whether the creditor was atoare of the dissolution or not.</p> <p>3. Nor does an admission by one partner, after dissolution, that a debt is due, bind the other late partner so as to take the case out of the stat. ute as to the latter.</p> <p>4. The “ cause of action ” in a suit for goods sold is the expresss or implied promise to pay, and a premise by the party sought to be charged, or facts from which a promise legally results, within the period of the statute of limitations, must be shown to defeat the operation of the statute.</p> <p>5. A member of a copartnership, after the dissolution, has no agency growing out of the former partnership relation to create or to perpetuate a liability of his late copartner for partnership indebtedness, as against .the operation of the statute of limitations.</p>