¶1It is among the elementary doctrines of the law of partnership that the act of one partner is the act of all. And whenever one partner does an act which binds the others, it binds them because it is done under such circumstances as to be their act at the time it is done, or to become their act by subsequent occurrences. The declaration alleges facts tending to show that the wrongful act of Hemsley became the tort of both defendants; but the fact intended to be put in issue is stated so indirectly and argumentatively, that the court cannot draw from the averments the legal inference that the defendant Cropper is liable. Demurrer sustained
83 Mass. 337
Gray v. Cropper
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 15, 1861
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1861-01-15
<p>In an action against a partnership for fraudulent representations made by one of its members, a declaration alleging that he, acting in behalf of the firm, procured a writ of replevin to be brought in the name of a third person, and signed his own name to the replevin bond as surety; and that he declared to the plaintiff, who was a deputy sheriff, that the firm was responsible, and that his signature to the bond bound the firm, and that he was „ authorized by the firm to bind it by his signature alone, and thus induced the plaintiff to accept the bond and to serve the writ, whereby the firm obtained and disposed of the goods replevied for its own benefit; and that judgment was rendered for the defendant in replevin, and the goods were not returned, and the firm was not bound by the signature to the bond, and the plaintiff has been held liable for taking an insufficient bond; does not set forth sufficient facts to charge the other partner for the fraud.</p>
Decided 1861-01-15