Hill v. Voorhies

• Decision Date: 12 October 1853
• Parties: Hill <I>versus</I> Voorhies.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

22 Pa. 68

Hill versus Voorhies.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 12, 1853.

ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stanton and Williams, for plaintiff in error.—Where one of several parties draws bills in his own name, there is no remedy against the firm, though the proceeds are carried to the partnership account: Story on Part. 136.

The case did not show any more than a part ownership of the boat by Hill; it did not show that he was engaged as a partner in the business of a common carrier.

It was further said that the admissions of Hill of ownership, related to a time subsequent to the damage to the goods. That before the execution of the bill of sale, Hunter appeared to be sole owner of the boat. That instrument, though dated in July, was not executed till October. The note endorsed by Voorhies & Co. was dated in August. It was contended that any liability in Hill arising from ownership could not exist before his title in the boat existed.

G. P. Hamilton, for defendants in error.—The jury have found that Hill was a part owner of the boat at the time of the damage. It was said that the finding was on proper grounds. On 31st July, the date of the bill of sale, Hunter was indebted to Hill $1000, viz. $500 on a former transaction, and $500 advanced while the boat was building. This indebtedness was credited on account of the purchase of an interest in the boat. The bill of sale, and a note of Beck for the balance of the purchase-money, being dated back to the 31st July, 1849, though executed in October, indicated a former contract between the parties; and the bill of sale was the evidence of Hill's title, but not its origin. His admissions of ownership were evidence: Blackstock v. Long, 7 Harris 340. Hill being an owner, the presumption is that the boat was navigated in part for his benefit: Blackstock v. Leidy, 7 Harris 335; Abbott on Shipping 176; Coll. on Part. 631-686.

It was contended that the original liability of Hill as an owner was not discharged by the taking of the note of Hunter and Blackstock alone. That Hill nor Beck were not known publicly as owner until the registry of the bill of sale at the Custom-House in March, 1850. The general rule was not disputed, that in partnership transactions where credit is given exclusively to less than the whole number of partners, the rest are discharged; but this rule does not apply to a dormant partner. He need not be joined as plaintiff: 8 Ser. & R. 55. He is liable when discovered: 5 W. & Ser. 333, Given v. Albert; Chitty on Contracts 195; 5 Watts 454. He need not be joined as plaintiff or defendant in an action relating to a partnership: 8 Ser. & R. 55, Watson v. Wallace.

The action can be sustained on the principle of subrogation, which requires neither contract or privity to sustain it, and may be applied wherever one, not a mere volunteer, discharges the debt or obligation for which another is primarily liable in person or estate: 6 Watts 221; opinion of BELL, J., in Wallace's Appeal, 5 Barr 105; 9 Barr 498; 7 W. & Ser. 308; 1 Barr 512.

The opinion of the Court was delivered, October 12, by LEWIS, J.

One partner has an implied authority to bind the firm by contracts relating to the partnership business, whether such contracts be evidenced by bare agreements, oral or written, or by negotiable instruments, as bills of exchange or promissory notes. This rule is applicable both to dormant and nominal partners. It is now an undoubted and universal proposition, that a dormant partner is in all cases liable for the contracts of...