Thompson v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1975
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Thompson v. First Nat Bank of Toledo Ohio · Pratt v. Page · Davis v. Willis · Thompson v. Harmon · Tudor v. White
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Those having subsequent dealings without knowledge of the existence of the partnership are entitled to no notice of any kind of the dissolution. A continuing relation cannot be relied upon by one without knowledge that such relation once existed. Hence, subsequent creditors without such knowledge cannot fasten liability upon a retiring member through the mere failure to give notice of dissolution. Swigert v. Aspden, 52 Minn. 565 , 54 N. W. 738 . The basis of such liability is estoppel. Having held himself out, or permitted others to hold him out, as a partner whereby persons dealing with the partnership are induced to believe him a member thereof, and through such belief to extend credit to the partnership, he cannot as to such persons deny the partnership, although it does not in fact exist. This being the sole ground of liability, one seeking to recover against a retiring member must establish that he knew at the time of the transaction that a partnership existed, of which the one sought to be held liable was a member; that he believed it still existed, being in ignorance of any dissolution; and that he entered upon the transaction or extended credit in reliance upon the partnership as it had theretofore existed. Wallis v. Wood [Tex. Sup.] 7 S. W. 852 ; Pratt v. Page, 32 Vt. 13 ; Thompson v. Bank, 111 U. S. 529 , 4 S. Ct. 689 , 28 L. Ed. 507 ; 22 Am. & Eng. Law, 58.” Again: “As to the deposit of H. B. Otis and his sale of the Bradford vendor lien notes, while his testimony”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stevens v. Lilley
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.