Lloyd v. Thomas

79 Pa. 68, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 181
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 19, 1875·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Paxson

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

We 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.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lloyd v. Thomas, 79 Pa. 68, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 181 (Pa. 1875).

79 Pa. 68 (Lloyd v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wood v. Todd
251 F. 530 (Third Circuit, 1918)