Lloyd v. Thomas

Decided May 19, 1875

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1875-05-19

<p>A firm dissolved in May, giving notice by publication and authorizing one to use the firm name as liquidating partner. In August, without the knowledge of his fellows, he drew notes payable to the firm, endorsed them with the firm name, had them discounted by bankers with whom the firm had never had dealings; the proceeds of the notes passed to the individual credit of the partner making them; there was evidence that the proceeds were applied to the firm debts. Hdd, that if the notes were bonst fide for liquidation and the proceeds applied to payment of firm debts, the other partners would be liable.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1918

1 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-05-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Paxson

¶1delivered the opinion of the court, May 31st 1875.

¶2We think the learned judge of the court below erred in instructing the jury that the mere fact that the notes in controversy were issued by Jacob V. Thomas, and endorsed by him with the firm name after the partnership was dissolved, exempted the other two members of the firm from being bound by the notes. Jacob was the liquidating partner; by the terms of the dissolution he was expressly authorized to use the firm name- in the settlement of its business. If the notes were made and issued in good faith for the purposes of liquidation, and the proceeds applied to the payment of the firm debts, of which there was some evidence, the other partners would be liable. The evidence upon this point should have been submitted to the jury, and it was error to instruct them to find for the defendants.

¶3Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.