Hahlo v. Mayer

• Decision Date: 01 October 1890
• Citation: Hahlo v. Mayer, 102 Mo. 93, 15 S.W. 750 (Mo. 1890)
• Parties: HAHLO v. MAYER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

15 S.W. 750

102 Mo. 93

HAHLO v. MAYER.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1890.

PARTNERSHIP — ACTION ON NOTE.

M. had been engaged in a mercantile business for many years, his son taking an active part as an employe. For some months the business was conducted in the name of M. & Son, though the son had in fact no interest in the business. The son executed accommodation notes in the name of M. & Son. Held, that M. was liable on the notes in the hands of a bona fide holder. BARCLAY, J., dissenting from 13 S. W. Rep. 804.

For majority opinion, see 13 S. W. Rep. 804.

BARCLAY, J., (dissenting.)

The rule on which the majority opinion rests does not seem to me to control the case shown here by the facts. It therefore does not appear necessary further to remark upon it or to discuss its limitations. This record discloses that Abram B. Mayer had been carrying on a mercantile business in St. Louis in his own name (A. B. Mayer) for many years before the notes in suit were made in September, 1884. In March of that year a reporter for Bradstreet's Mercantile Agency, having observed in the city directory that the business name was printed as "A. B. Mayer & Son," called at the firm's office to inquire about the change, and was told by Abram that the firm name had been modified as indicated; that he had admitted his son Frederick to a partnership "to encourage him," and that the son had not added any money to the concern. These facts appeared from the testimony for plaintiff of the agency reporter, and although Mr. Abram B. Mayer was...