Cunningham v. Bragg & Co.
This text of 37 Ala. 436 (Cunningham v. Bragg & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The 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.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
37 Ala. 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-bragg-co-ala-1861.