Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Ala. 436

Cunningham v. Bragg & Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1861

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1861-01-15

ApíbaB from the Circuit Court of Macon. Tried 'before the Hon. Rojbekt DouaiiBETY. 'This action was brought by A. G. Bragg & Co., against William R. Cunningham ; and was founded on a promissory note -for '$203 25, executed by Cunningham & Cole, dated the 8th May, 1856, and payable five months after date, to the order >of plaintiffs.

Relies on Lee's Adm'rs v. Fontaine · Edgar v. Cook

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1898

6 state decisions

301861187018801890decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

STONE, J.

¶1The ruling of the circuit court in this case can not be supported. After'the dissolution of tbe firm, the one partner bad no authority to bind*the other by any new contract he might enter into* The note which.Mr. Cole executed was the evidence of a- debt, an- admission that the sum therein mentioned was due to Messrs. Bragg & Co. He had no authority to bind Mr. Cunningham by his admissions. The proof, as-recited in, the record, did not authorize a recovery against - the present 'appellant, on-the note. A recovery on the original contract, if proved, may probably be had on a proper count. — Lang v. Waring, 17, Ala. 145, 157, and authorities : Coll. on Partnership, by Perkins, § 540, and note;. ib. § 546; Perine v. Keene, 19 Maine, 355 Bowman v. Blodgett, 2 Metc. 308 ; Edgar v. Cook, 4 Ala. 588 ; Lee v. Fountain & Freeman, 10 Ala. 755.

¶2Reversed and remanded.

/37/ala/436 · .json · Public domain