The action is assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, and was tried on the general issue. The facts were, that the defendants, Thomas II. Alexander, Joseph Alexander, and Abner Alexander, entered into partnership in a fishery in Tyrrell County; and, by the agreement, each of them was to furnish certain things, needful to the prosecution of the business, as parts of his stock therein.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1838
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
The opinion of his Honor is sustained by the direct authority of
Wharton
v..
Woodburn,
4 Dev. and Bat. 507. It is there laid down, in conformity with settled principles, that if one of the partners purchase goods ostensibly for the firm, but in truth for himself, the
*5
firm is bound in the same manner as it would be, if the partner had borrowed money for the firm, and misapplied it. If it were not so, there would be no security in dealing with partnerships. How could these plaintiffs know, that Thomas H. Alexander, was breaking his contract with the other parties, and was not buying for the firm, when he said that he was, and purchased in their name
'!
It is a question of loss, between innocent persons; and it is plain, which of them should bear it. His co-partners trusted Thomas H. Alexander; but the plaintiffs did not. They trusted the firm, upon an application in the name of the firm ; and they have a right to look to every member of it for their debt.
