First Nat. Bank of Graham, Va. v. Hall

• Decision Date: 07 November 1917
• Docket Number: 322.
• Citation: 93 S.E. 981,174 N.C. 477
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF GRAHAM, VA., v. HALL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

93 S.E. 981

174 N.C. 477

FIRST NAT. BANK OF GRAHAM, VA., v. HALL.

No. 322.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 7, 1917

Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; Kerr, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank of Graham, Va., against R. J Hall. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. No error.

In action to charge defendant with indebtedness as member of partnership, defendant denying he was a member and averring firm never existed, that defendant published notice that firm was dissolved, etc., held competent to contradict answer.

Civil action, tried upon these issues:

(1) Was the defendant R. J. Hall a member of the partnership of Hart Hall & Co. on the 21st day of March, 1912, the 7th day of May, 1912, and the 6th day of June, 1912? Answer: Yes.

(2) Was there a dissolution of the firm of Hart, Hall & Co. by the withdrawal of R. J. Hall therefrom previous to February 20 1913? Answer: No.

(3) If so, did the plaintiff have notice of such dissolution previous to February 20, 1913? Answer: No.

(4) In what amount, if any, is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff? Answer: $1,860.07, and interest on $1,800 from January 12, 1917.

E. S.W Dameron and W. H. Carroll, both of Burlington, and Long & Long and Parker & Long, all of Graham, for appellant.

John H. Vernon, of Burlington, and Manning & Kitchin, of Raleigh, for appellee.

BROWN J.

The issues explain the controversy. Plaintiff sues to recover balance due on certain notes signed Hart, Hall & Co., by A. F. Hart, alleging that defendant Hall was a member of the partnership, and as such liable for the debt. The answer denied the partnership and consequent liability.

The defendant assigns 15 errors, but we deem it necessary to notice only a few of them, as the matter in controversy is largely a question of fact, and appears to have been settled by the jury in plaintiff's favor upon evidence fully justifying their verdict. Several exceptions are taken to the rulings of the court permitting the declarations of defendant tending to prove the partnership.

The plaintiff did not offer the declarations of one member of a partnership made to a witness for the purpose of proving that another person was also a partner in the same firm. Such testimony would have been incompetent. Henry v. Willard, 73 N.C. 35. The testimony of Thompson was to the effect that the defendant told him that he and Hart were members of the firm of Hart, Hall & Co. and had the contract together. The testimony of Hart was that he was a member of the firm, and that the defendant was the other partner.

It is undoubtedly competent to prove the declarations of an alleged member of a partnership to prove that he is in fact one of the partners. It is also competent to prove by one of the partners the personality of the partnership and who composed it. Swygert v. Bank, 13 Ga.App. 640, 79 S.E. 759. The defendant excepts to the evidence of Hart as follows:

"I had a letter handed me by Mr. R. J. Hall, written by Mr. A. L. Davis, cashier of the First National Bank of Burlington, N. C., stating that the firm of Hart, Hall & Co. was safe to the amount of $75,000 to $80,000. I have not this letter in my possession, and cannot find it. I showed it to N.E. Morton, cashier of the First National Bank of Graham, Va., but I do not know now where it is. I have searched for it in my papers, and cannot find it."

It was competent to prove the act of defendant in procuring the letter of credit in the name of the partnership. It was done to further the business of the firm, and to enable Hart to borrow money in the prosecution of the partnership work. Collins v. Smith, 11 Mass. 388.

Several exceptions were taken to the testimony of the witness Hart that the original notes evidencing the money borrowed were not paid, but renewed, except that $280 was paid on the note of $1,000 and renewed for $720, and that the two notes of $1,500 and $300 were consolidated into one note of $1,800. This evidence was...