Askew v. Silman

• Decision Date: 25 March 1895
• Citation: 22 S.E. 573,95 Ga. 678
• Parties: ASKEW v. SILMAN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

22 S.E. 573

95 Ga. 678

ASKEW v. SILMAN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 25, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

1. As to one who had been a mere customer of a partnership as a purchaser of its goods, but who had never been a creditor of the partnership, actual, personal notice of the dissolution of the partnership by the withdrawal of one of its members is not indispensable to the discharge of the retiring partner from liability upon a note for the loan of money executed in the firm name after the dissolution. A customer of this kind is entitled only to such notice as should be given to "the world" of the dissolution.

2. It is a question for the jury whether or not, under all the circumstances of a given case, the party making such a loan and taking such a note is chargeable with notice of the dissolution of the firm; and in determining this question they may take into consideration the lapse of time occurring between the dissolution and the making of the note, and all the evidence showing what information was received by the lender, and illustrating his knowledge or want of knowledge before the loan was made, as to the fact of dissolution.

3. The publication in a newspaper of local items of news inserted by the editor, and neither authorized nor signed by any member of a firm, to the effect that one of the partners had withdrawn, is not, necessarily, all that may be requisite to convey notice of dissolution, but should be given such weight as, in the opinion of the jury, it is entitled to receive.

4. The fact of the circulation in the community of a general rumor that one of the partners had retired is admissible in evidence, not as being of itself sufficient to put any particular person on notice of the dissolution of the firm but as a circumstance proper to be considered by the jury in connection with the other evidence bearing on the question of notice.

5. If the retiring partner was not otherwise liable, the fact that the money loaned to the other members of the firm, and for which they gave a note in the firm name, was used in paying debts contracted by the firm prior to his withdrawal, would not render him so.

Error from city court of Jackson; W. W. Stark, Judge.

Action by Mrs. S.E. Silman against Elbert Askew and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial defendant Askew brings error. Brought forward from the last term. Code, §§ 4271a-4271c. Reversed.

W. I. Pike, E. C. Armstead, G. C. Thomas, and J. J. Strickland, for plaintiff in error.

J. A. B. Mahaffey, E. T. Brown, and Erwin, Cobb & Woolley, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS C.J.

Mrs. Silman sued Askew and others, alleged to be members of the firm of Austin & Co., upon a promissory note signed in the firm name, and dated June 17, 1890. Askew pleaded "Not indebted"; also that he had not signed the note, nor authorized any person to do so for him, and had never ratified the signing; and further, that he was not a member of the firm when the note was signed, and was not bound by the contract; that the firm was dissolved January 11, 1888, and had ceased to do business from that date, which fact was known to the plaintiff when the note was executed. There was a verdict for the plaintiff against all the defendants sued, and Askew made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted.

1. The main question at issue on the trial of the case was whether there was such notice of the dissolution of the partnership as would relieve Askew from liability for the debt in question. It appeared from the evidence that the dissolution took place, as alleged in the plea, more than two years prior to the date of the note, and that the note was given by Austin, one of the copartners, without the knowledge or consent of Askew, for money borrowed by Austin in the name of the firm at the time the note was executed. Askew's withdrawal from the partnership was announced soon after the dissolution, in a newspaper published in the town in which the plaintiff resided and the firm conducted its business the announcement appearing at different times, in the form of news items, written by the editor of the paper. The plaintiff was a subscriber to the newspaper when these notices appeared, but testified that she...