Reed v. Bacon
| Decision Date | 02 March 1900 |
| Citation | 175 Mass. 407,56 N.E. 716 |
| Parties | REED v. BACON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
H. J. Fuller and Wm. H. Pond, for plaintiff.
Williams & Copeland, for defendants.
The defendants' exceptions must be overruled.
1. There was evidence warranting a finding for the plaintiff. There was evidence that the note sued on was given in renewal of a note delivered to carry out a contract whereby the plaintiff agreed to lend to the firm of Lincoln, Bacon & Co. and that firm agreed to borrow of the plaintiff, $5,000. A note signed by Bacon, one member of the firm, indorsed by the firm, to carry out that contract, is given in the course of the firm's business, and binds all partners. Wait v Thayer, 118 Mass. 473, 478; Cooper v McCluskan, 22 Pa. St. 80, 84; Langan v. Hewett, 13 Smedes & M. 122; Bank v. Alberger, 101 N.Y. 202, 4 N.E. 341; Daniel, Neg. Inst. § 365. The fact that the note was indorsed by the firm, and was delivered in carrying out an agreement by which the firm agreed to borrow the money therein agreed to be paid, distinguishes this case from Bank v. Savery, 127 Mass. 75, and Smith v. Weston, 159 N.Y. 194, 54 N.E. 38, in which it is held that a firm is not, at least prima facie, liable on such note, when given for a loan made to one partner. The bill of exceptions does not show to whom the check was payable by which the $5,000 borrowed by the firm was paid. If the check was made payable to Bacon personally, that would have been evidence tending to control the evidence that it was paid under a contract whereby the firm agreed to borrow the money. There was evidence that the defendant firm had been in the habit of borrowing money to carry on the firm business, and that that part of the firm business had been conducted by Bacon, the partner who made this agreement, signed this note as maker, and indorsed the firm name on the back. It appears that the $5,000 never reached the firm, but was intercepted on its way, and put into Bacon's private account. But it is not shown that the plaintiff knew this. If she was ignorant of it, it could not affect her rights. Her rights could not be affected by Bacon's act in wrongfully putting into his own bank account the firm's money, which he had borrowed in its behalf. The fourteenth ruling requested was properly refused.
2. There is nothing in the first and second rulings requested. The plaintiff declared on the renewal note, and proved it; and how proof of the original note, made as a step in proving the character of the renewal note could be thought to lay the foundation of a claim of variance under a declaration counting on the renewal note, is not apparent to us.
3. The third request was properly denied. There was evidence that Thompson acted as the go-between in making the contract. It is not material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Power Grocery Co. v. Hinton
... ... theretofore. The members of the partnership were H. A. Power, ... J. H. Fuhrman, J. W. Bacon, Charles Stephens, and George ... Alexander, the latter of whom owned an interest equal to ... seven-twentieths of the property and business of the ... in the hands of a bona fide holder without notice of its ... infirmity by reason of its unauthorized execution. Reed ... v. Bacon, 175 Mass. 407, 56 N.E. 716; Catskill Bank ... v. Stall, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 364; Hawes v. Dunton, 1 ... Bailey (S. C.) 146, 19 ... ...