Parkins v Carruthers Et Alt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 604
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Same day. parkins v. cabbuthees et alt. (Where a partnership has existed, but one of the partners has retired without notice being given in the Gazette, and the name of the firm is still preserved ; a person dealing with the firm after the dissolution, may still call upon all the original parties, unless he had notice, or knew that one of them had retired.) Assumpsit on a promissory note for £800, signed by Joseph Parkin, one oi the defendants, drawn the 10th of July, 1798. It appeared, that on the 29th of April, John Campbell, one of the defendants, retired from the partnership, and never after intermeddled with the trade ; and the bill was drawn after he had so retired ; but no notice of his retiring was published m the Gazette. The defence was,-That the note was given for the separate account of Joseph Parkin, and not on the partnership account. Erskine, for the defendant, contended, that notice in the Gazette could only affect antecedent transactions ; but if a partner had retired from a firm, a party who never dealt with the house whilst such partner was in the firm, could not call upon the credit of such person as a partner, when in faet he was not so admitting the principle, that if the person had dealt with the house before, if the dissolution of the partnership had not been made public, the party still continued liable ; the notice in the Gazette could only apply to those who dealt with the house before Law, on tie same side. The only evidence of the partnership is by the deed of dissolution that [249] was in April, 1798, and by that the partnership was recited ; so that by the same instrument, by which it was proved that he was a partner, it appeared tbat te had ceased to be so at the time the note was drawn. Gibbs, on the same side. The money was paid to Joseph Parkin as agent for the plaintiff by Mi. Booth, who had that money to pay to the plaintiff ò and as he pai 1 it to- Joseph Parkin, the defendant, who was one of the partners, this was legal notice to Thomas Parkin, the plaintifi, that John Campbell wa? out of the partnership, as his agent knew it. Le Blanc, Justice.-Is not this a question for the j ury ? The firm continues the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ACC Bank Plc v Johnston (t/a Brian Johnston & Company Solicitors) and Others
...PTY LTD v RICHARDSON & WRENCH LTD 1982 AC 462 1981 3 WLR 493 1981 3 AER 65 PARTNERSHIP ACT 1890 S36(1) PARKINS v CARRUTHERS & ORS 170 ER 604 1800 3 ESP 248 CARTER v WHALLEY & ORS 109 ER 691 1830 1 B & AD 11 TOWER CABINET CO LTD v INGRAM 1949 2 KB 397 1949 1 AER 1033 UNITED BANK OF KUWAIT v ......
-
ACC Bank Plc (plaintiff) v Johnston, Practising under the style and title of Brian Johnson & Company Solicitors (defendant) & Traynor & Mallon (Third parties)
...PTY LTD v RICHARDSON & WRENCH LTD 1982 AC 462 1981 3 WLR 493 1981 3 AER 65 PARTNERSHIP ACT 1890 S36(1) PARKINS v CARRUTHERS & ORS 170 ER 604 1800 3 ESP 248 CARTER v WHALLEY & ORS 109 ER 691 1830 1 B & AD 11 TOWER CABINET CO LTD v INGRAM 1949 2 KB 397 1949 1 AER 1033 UNITED BANK OF KUWAIT v ......
-
Harris v Farwell
...Greene, for the executors of the testator. Mr. E. Palmer and Mr. Bird, for Cole. David v. Ellice (5 Barn. & Cr. 196); Purlin v. Carruthers (3 Esp. 248); Kirwan v. Kirwan (2 Crom. & M. 617); Milk v. Soyil (6 Jur. 943, V.-C. W.); Thompson v. Percival (5 B. & Ad. 925) ; Daniel v. Cross (3 Ves.......
-
Case Note
...cases where a promissory note given by the firm after retirement of a partner was held binding on the latter: eg, Parkins v Carruthers (1800) 3 Esp 248; 170 ER 604. 99 See Lindley & Banks on Partnership (Sweet & Maxwell, 18th Ed, 2002) at paras 13-41-13-43 which states that s 36 embodies th......