« السابقةمتابعة »
6. W. inade a non-negotiable note to plaintiff for money lent, and defendants indorsed as sureties for W. One of them paid interest and both promised to pay. Held, that they were not liable as indorsers or on an account stated: Skilbeck v. Porter, 14 U. C. Q. B. 430 (1857).
7. Where a non-negotiable promissory note given for money lent to a firm, was signed by one partner and indorsed by the other, the latter was under the particular facts of the case held to have signed as guarantor: McPhee v. McPhee, 19 O. R. 603 (1890).
8. Where three persons indorsed a note which was not not indorsed by the payees to whose order it was made, they were held not liable as makers: Morton v. Campbell, 4 N. S. (Cochran) 5 (1859).
9. A person who had put his name on the back of a note before its delivery to the payees, held not liable to them as an indorser: Burns v. Snow, 3 N. S. D. 530 (1875).
10. A note payable to P. was indorsed by G. lengthwise on the note, and then by P. G. was held liable as an indorser: McLean v. Garnier, 14 N. S. (2 R. & G.) 432 (1881).
11. Y. signed a non-negotiable note, and H. who agreed to be his surety, wrote across the back, a joint note or better than a joint note," and signed it. Held, that H. was liable as maker Piers v. Hall, 18 N. B. (2 P. & B.) 34 (1878).
12. Where A. puts his name on the back of a promissory note payable to B. or order, before it is delivered to the payee to take effect as a promissory note, he is liable as maker: Bell v. Moffat, 20 N. B. (4 P. & B.) 121 (1880).
13. D., the holder of a bill indorsed in blank, converts the last indorsement into a special indorsement in favour of a person to whom he transfers the bill. D. is not liable as an indorser : Vincent v. Horlock, 1 Camp. 442 (1808).
14. A clerk draws a bill in the name of a firm whose business he is winding up, two of the partners being dead. He is not liable on the bill: Wilson v. Barthrop, 2 M. & W. 863 (1837).
15. A. draws a bill, signing it "J. A., agent." A. alone is § 23. liable as agent; his principal is not: Pentz v. Stanton, 10 Wend. 271 (1833).
16. The principal is not liable on a note on which his name does not appear, even if the payee knew that the note was given on his account: Robinson v. Kanawha Bank, 44 Ohio St. 447 (1886).
Assumed Name.-A person may adopt whatever name he pleases in his business dealings, unless there be some special reason against his using that particular name; and in such a case the adopted name is in law equivalent to his actual name. Thus an individual may carry on business. in a firm name, or a husband in the name of his wife, or a principal in the name of an agent, or a corporation may use a firm name or that of its agents, etc.
1. A bill drawn and indorsed by a wife in her own name in the presence of her husband and under his direction was treated as the bill of the husband: Prestwick v. Marshall, 7 Bing. 565 (1831).
2. A bill drawn on William Bradwell was accepted by his wife Mary Bradwell in her own name. The husband recognized his liability and promised to pay. Held, that he was liable as acceptor: Lindus v. Bradwell, 5 C. B. 583 (1848). See also Ross v. Codd, 7 U. C. Q. B. at p. 74 (1850); and Trueman v. Loder, 11 A. & E. at p. 594 (1840).
3. Where one partner of an English firm did business for the firm in America in his own individual name, the firm was held liable on indorsements by him: South Carolina Bank v. Case, 8 B. & C. 427 (1828).
4. The "Boston Iron Company' was held liable on notes signed "Horace Gray & Co.": Melledge v. Boston Iron Co., 5 Cush. 158 (1849).
Firm signature. The signature of a firm is deemed to be the signature of all those who are partners in the firm, whether working, dormant or secret, or who, by holding themselves out as partners, are liable as such to third parties: Pooley v. Driver, 5 Ch. D. 458 (1876); Gurney v. Evans, 27 L. J. Ex. 166 (1858).
A bill addressed to a partner may be accepted by the firm, and the partner made liable as acceptor on the principle contained in this clause: section 17. The partners are presumed to have given each other authority to do the business of the firm, and what is done by one binds the others, not only ordinary partners but also dormant or secret partners. And in trading or commercial partnerships each partner will be presumed to have authority to sign the firm name as drawer, acceptor, maker or indorser to commercial paper for the business of the firm. If a partner sign the firm name on his private business, the firm is not liable except to a holder in due course: Bank of Australasia v. Breillat, 6 Moore P. C. 152 (1847); Wiseman v. Easton, 8 L. T. N. S. 687 (1863).
In civil or non-trading partnerships there is no such presumption, and the partner signing the firm name may make only himself liable: Dickenson v. Valpy, 10 B. & C. 137 (1829); Thicknesse v. Bromilow, 2 Cr. & J. 425 (1832); Ricketts v. Bennett, 4 C. B. 699 (1847); Garland v. Jacomb, L. R. 8 Ex. 219 (1873). But the others may become liable by estoppel or ratification: section 24.
1. Where the drawing or accepting of bills is not a necessary part of the business of a firm, the fact that bills were drawn and accepted with defendant's knowledge while he was a partner is sufficient to render him liable: Lee v. McDonald, 6 U. C. O. S. 130 (1841).
2. Where the plaintiff knowingly received a note indorsed for $23. the accommodation of the maker by one partner without the co-partner's authority or knowledge, the latter is not liable: Harris v. McLeod, 14 U. C, Q. B. 164 (1856); Royal Canadian Bank v. Wilson, 24 U. C. C. P. 362 (1874).
3. A holder who received in good faith before maturity a note indorsed in the firm name by one partner, is entitled to recover against the firm although the co-partner did not authorize the indorsement which was for the accommodation of the maker: Henderson v. Carveth, 16 U. C. Q. B. 324 (1858).
4. Where a firm of two or more indorse in the partnership name, the liability as sureties is a joint liability, and not the several liability of each partner: Clipperton v. Spettigue, 15 Grant, Chy. 269 (1868).
5. A draft was made on a firm and a partner marked it good" adding his own initials. Held, that the firm was not liable: Hovey v. Cassels, 30 U. C. C. P. 280 (1879).
6. Where a solicitor signed his firm's name to an accommodation note without the authority or knowledge of his co-partner, the latter is not liable, even to a holder in due course: Wilson v. Brown, 6 Ont. A. R. 411 (1881).
7. Plaintiffs discounted a note for the maker, payable to and indorsed in a firm name by one of the partners, plaintiffs knowing that it was so indorsed as security for the maker, and having no reason to suppose it was in connection with the partnership business. Held, that the other partners were not liable: Federal Bank v. Northwood, 7 O. R. 389 (1884).
8. Where plaintiff took a note which had been fraudulently signed by a partner in the firm name after dissolution, but before being advertised, and plaintiff knew nothing of the firm or its members, held, that the other partner was not liable: Standard Bank v. Dunham, 14 O. R. 67 (1887).
9. Where a person held out to be a partner gave a note in the name of the firm for money borrowed, and which was to be kept secret from the other partners, the lender cannot recover from
§ 23. the other members of the firm: McConnell v. Wilkins, 18 Ont.
A. R. 438 (1885).
10. A note made fraudulently byla partner in the firm name binds the partnership in the hands of a bona fide holder for value: Walter v. Molsons Bank, Ramsay A. C. 80 (1877).
11. Where by the deed of dissolution of a partnership, one partner was given authority to sign notes in the firm's name, and another partner, when sued on such a note, pleaded that it was given without his knowledge in the name of a terminated co-partnership, he was held liable: White v. Wells, 1 L. N. 87 (1878).
12. A partner made notes in the firm's name, forged the name of the payee, got the notes discounted at the bank, and applied a large part of the proceeds to partnership purposes. Held, that the bank could not rank on the insolvent estate of the firm on the notes, but could for the amount of them as for money paid: re Graham, 12 N. S. (3 R. & C.) 251 (1878).
13. A person who was a member in two firms made a note in the name of one, without the knowledge of his partner in that firm, to raise money for the other. The bank which discounted
the note was aware of the facts. Held, that the partner who was ignorant of the making was not liable to the bank: Creighton v. Halifax Banking Co., 18 S. C. Can. 140 (1890).
14. In an action by a bona fide holder against a firm as indorsers of a note, it is no defence that it was indorsed fraudulently by one of the firm, and for matters not relating to the business of the partnership: McLeod v. Carman, 12 N. B. (1 Han.) 592 (1869).
15. Where a party takes a note made or indorsed in a firm's name, knowing that it was not for the purposes of the partnership, the onus is on him to prove the knowledge or assent of each partner: Union Bank v. Bulmer, 2 Man. L. R. 380 (1885).
16. Where a bill is drawn on M. & McQ. for goods supplied to M, McQ. & Co., and accepted in the name of M. & McQ. by the manager of M. McQ. & Co., the latter are not liable as