Woodson v. Wood
Citations
- 84 Va. 478
- 5 S.E. 277
- 1888 Va. LEXIS 99
Syllabus
<p>1. Partnership—Dissolution—Power of partner.—After dissolution no partner can create a cause of action against the other partners except by a new authority conferred upon him for that purpose, whether the consideration be a pre-existing debt of the firm, or any auxiliary consideration that might prove beneficial to them. Bell v. Morrison, 1 Peters, 352.</p> <p>2. Idem—In liquidation—Notice.—Indorsement on a negotiable note of the words “ in liquidation ” has often been held sufficient to give notice of the dissolution of the partnership, and no recovery can be had on such indorsement against the other partners.</p> <p>3. Idem—Instructions—Case at bar.—P. & W. dissolved partnership. Notice of dissolution stated that either partner was authorized to use the firm name in liquidation. Later, P. took from a debtor of the firm, in settlement, a negotiable note payable “ to P. & W. in liquidation.” This note P. transferred to plaintiff by a like indorsement. At trial the jury were instructed that W. must prove that the note was not used for the firm purposes, else they should find for plaintiff:</p> <p>Held:</p> <p>Error.</p>
Judges: Lacy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hackley v. PatrickNew York Supreme Court· 1808-11-15· cited 25×
- Haddock, Reed & Co. v. CrocheronTexas Supreme Court· 1869-07-01· cited 9×
- Long v. StorySupreme Court of Missouri· 1847-07-15· cited 6×
- Lockwood v. ComstockU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan· 1848-06-15· cited 6×
- Humphries v. ChastainSupreme Court of Georgia· 1848-07-15· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.