Alabama Cabinet Works v. Benson Hardware Co.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 434. |
| Citation | 220 Ala. 336,125 So. 214 |
| Parties | ALABAMA CABINET WORKS ET AL. v. BENSON HARDWARE CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; E. S. Thigpen, Judge.
Action on a promissory note by the Benson Hardware Company against the Alabama Cabinet Works, a partnership, and J. T. Brewer and G. E. Padgett. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant partnership and J. T. Brewer, appeal. Affirmed.
S. H Gillis and A. R. Powell, both of Andalusia, for appellants.
Powell & Albritton, of Andalusia, for appellee.
The suit was upon a note by partnership, and one of the partners disputed the authority of the other, who executed the same.
The liability of a partner and as partnership liability imposed is well understood in this jurisdiction. Eggleston v Wilson, 211 Ala. 140, 143, 100 So. 89. And so of the method of proof as to the existence or nonexistence of the partnership and that of implied authority or agency. Roberts & Son v. Williams, 198 Ala. 290, 73 So. 502. There was no error in allowing the witness Benson to testify that defendants did work on other houses, as that for Gavins on the theory that, when there was a partnership existing the action of the partnership and members thereof were inferences of implied authority or of the lack thereof. Although the court may well have allowed the questions, "During the time that you were connected with it [the partnership] did they construct any building?" and "What was the character of the business during the time you were connected with it?" and allowed the witness to state what the parol partnership agreement was (Cummings v. Funkenstein Co., 17 Ala. App. 7, 81 So. 343, and authorities cited; Eggleston v. Wilson, 211 Ala. 140, 100 So. 89), these rulings were not reversible error; it not being disputed that Padgett and Brewer were partners under the firm name and style of Alabama Cabinet Works, and in which name the note sued upon was executed. It was not offered as a personal liability of the partner not signing the same. Brown v. Bamberger, Bloom & Co., 110 Ala. 342, 20 So. 114.
There was no error in allowing witness to testify that he had no notice that the authority of Padgett, a partner, was limited, or that the character of the business of the partnership was different from that in which they actually were engaged, or that plaintiff had no notice that Padgett had no authority to sign the note in his firm's name, by virtue of an agreement of the partners to such effect.
The evidence being concluded, the plaintiff and the defendant respectively requested general affirmative instructions. The charge given for the plaintiff was: "The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence they will find for the plaintiff as against all the defendants." And the court stated to the jury:
Padgett being a full partner in the business of construction, had the authority to sign the partnership name to the note for material and supplies used in that business, in an application of its assets to liabilities. Code, § 9373; 10 Enc. Dig. 854; 14 Enc. Dig. 625. That the materials or supplies were sold and credit given the partnership was not denied. The attention of Brewer was called to the account closed by note, and of its nature and amount. He never denied its correctness or disputed partnership liability. This is the effect of the evidence given by Gantt, Benson, and Straughn. The appellant Brewer admits that the only way he ever...
To continue reading
Request your trial