Heckheimer v. Allen

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHYDRICK
Citation89 S.C. 452,71 S.E. 1033
Decision Date26 August 1911

89 S.C. 452
71 S.E. 1033


Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 26, 1911.

[71 S.E. 1033]

Partnership (§ 286*)—Dissolution—Power of Partner to Bind Former Partners — Note.

After dissolution of a partnership, one of the partners executed promissory notes to plaintiff for the balance of a firm debt, signing them in the firm name, with notice to plaintiff that the partnership had been dissolved, and that he had no authority to sign the firm name. Held, that a former partner of the signer was not liable thereon.

[Ed. Note—For other cases, see Partnership, Sent. Dig. §§ 646-649; Dec. Dig. § 286.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Action by E. Heckheimer against James M. Allen. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. W. Ragsdale and R. E. Whiting, for appellant.

Willcox & Willcox, for respondent.

HYDRICK, J. The complaint alleges that the firm of James Allen & Son, composed of James Allen and his son, James M. Allen, the defendant herein, became indebted to the plaintiff, and on December 7, 1896, gave him their two promissory notes, one for $350, due July 1, 1897, and the other for $546.51, due January 1, 1898, both bearing interest from November 10, 1896, and containing a promise to pay all expenses of collection, including attorney's fees, if not paid at maturity, and prays judgment for the amount due thereon. The defendant denies liability, alleging that the notes were given after the dissolution of the firm of James Allen & Son, of which plaintiff had notice. There was testimony tending to show that the firm was dissolved in May, 1895, and that plaintiff had notice of the dissolution; that, prior to the dissolution, plaintiff held the firm's note for $1,500 which had been reduced by payments to the aggregate amount of the two notes sued on, which were given in renewal of that note, and that the new notes were first signed by James Allen alone; but plaintiff insisted that they should be signed in the firm's name, as the old note was, and that, in compliance with his request, James Allen signed them in the firm name, but told him, when he did so, that the firm had been dissolved, and that he had no authority to sign the firm name. The defendant also testified that the original debt was a private debt of his father, and that the old note was given before he was of age. Upon the evidence, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, holding that giving the new notes...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT