Wheeler v. McEldowney

Citations

• 60 Ill. 358

Syllabus

<p>Paetnbeship — proof thereof. In an action against A and B on a promissory note signed A & Co., the declaration alleged that A and B were partners in business under the firm name of A & Co., and as such made the note sued on. B denied the partnership and his joint liability with A as partner, on the note. The plaintiff introduced in evidence the note, and a bond for a deed for certain mill property, executed by a third person, with the knowledge of B, to “ A and B, composing the firm of A & Co.,” which bond was duly recorded. It appeared that B made the most, if not all, the payments on the property, and that when reimbursed by A, the property was to be the property of A; that the note was executed for work done in the mill by the plaintiff as miller; that B visited the mill several times after the purchase. A testified that B never had any interest in the mill business; that he alone was interested in that, and assumed the firm name of A & Co. in which to transact business; that the firm was himself and no other; that B never authorized him to use his name, nor did he ever represent to others or to the plaintiff that B had any interest in the mill business; that the interest of the latter only extended to the real estate: Held, the evidence was sufficient to charge B upon the note; that the bond for a deed to the mill propert}', taken with the knowledge and consent of B, in which A and B were described as composing the firm of A & Co., and put on record, -was a holding out to the world that they were partners in the mill property and in the business of the mill, though, as between themselves, there may have been no partnership in the mill business.</p>