Martinez v. McGregor-Doniger, Inc.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Martinez v. McGregor-Doniger, Inc.

173 A.2d 221, 1961 D.C. App. LEXIS 265

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 8, 1961

Docket2802

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 173 A.2d 221 (Martinez v. McGregor-Doniger, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. McGregor-Doniger, Inc., 173 A.2d 221, 1961 D.C. App. LEXIS 265 (D.C. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered against appellant for failure to pay for certain merchandise delivered to a business in which appellant had been a partner.

The record reveals that appellant in July 1959, while a partner in a firm trading as “Riggs Men Shop,” ordered certain merchandise for the shop from appellee’s agent. The order was accepted and later approved upon partial payment of $1,000 and the submission of the partnership financial statement to appellee’s credit department. In August 1959, before any of the merchandise was delivered, appellant notified appellee’s agent that he had withdrawn from the partnership. The merchandise was subsequently delivered and appellee sued appellant for the unpaid balance.

Appellant contends that since he withdrew from the partnership prior to delivery of the goods and since appellee’s agent had notice of his withdrawal, he should not be liable for the partnership debt. We find that the law is otherwise. A retiring partner cannot absolve himself from liability for firm debts contracted while he was a member of the firm 1 in the absence of an agreement on the part of the credi *222 tor. 2 This is true even though notice of the retirement is given the creditor. 3 Here, although notice of the dissolution of the partnership was given to appellee’s agent, we find nothing in the record to indicate that appellee agreed to hold only the remaining partner liable. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be

Affirmed.

1

. Tuckerman v. Mearns, 49 App.D.C. 153, 262 F. 607; Mearns v. Chatard, 47 App.D.C. 257; Lindley v. Seward, 103 Ind.App. 600, 5 N.E.2d 998, rehearing denied, 103 Ind.App. 600, 8 N.E.2d 119; Henry v. Seiberling Rubber Co., 265 Ky. 241, 96 S.W.2d 590; Shunk v. Shunk Mfg. Co., 86 Ohio App. 467, 93 N.E.2d 321; Clinchfield Fuel Co. v. W. M. Lundy & Son, 130 Tenn. 135, 169 S.W. 563, L.R.A.1915B, 418; 40 Am.Jur., Partnership § 266; 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 352.

2

. Lindley v. Seward; Henry v. Seiberling Rubber Co.; 68 C.J.S. Partnership supra note 1.

3

. Henry v. Seiberling Rubber Co.; Clinchfield Fuel Co. v. W. M. Lundy & Son, supra note 1.

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

SMITH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered against appellant for failure to pay for certain merchandise delivered to a business in which appellant had been a partner.

The record reveals that appellant in July 1959, while a partner in a firm trading as “Riggs Men Shop,” ordered certain merchandise for the shop from appellee’s agent. The order was accepted and later approved upon partial payment of $1,000 and the submission of the partnership financial statement to appellee’s credit department. In August 1959, before any of the merchandise was delivered, appellant notified appellee’s agent that he had withdrawn from the partnership. The merchandise was subsequently delivered and appellee sued appellant for the unpaid balance.

Appellant contends that since he withdrew from the partnership prior to delivery of the goods and since appellee’s agent had notice of his withdrawal, he should not be liable for the partnership debt. We find that the law is otherwise. A retiring partner cannot absolve himself from liability for firm debts contracted while he was a member of the firm 1 in the absence of an agreement on the part of the credi *222 tor. 2 This is true even though notice of the retirement is given the creditor. 3 Here, although notice of the dissolution of the partnership was given to appellee’s agent, we find nothing in the record to indicate that appellee agreed to hold only the remaining partner liable. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be

Affirmed.

1

. Tuckerman v. Mearns, 49 App.D.C. 153, 262 F. 607; Mearns v. Chatard, 47 App.D.C. 257; Lindley v. Seward, 103 Ind.App. 600, 5 N.E.2d 998, rehearing denied, 103 Ind.App. 600, 8 N.E.2d 119; Henry v. Seiberling Rubber Co., 265 Ky. 241, 96 S.W.2d 590; Shunk v. Shunk Mfg. Co., 86 Ohio App. 467, 93 N.E.2d 321; Clinchfield Fuel Co. v. W. M. Lundy & Son, 130 Tenn. 135, 169 S.W. 563, L.R.A.1915B, 418; 40 Am.Jur., Partnership § 266; 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 352.

2

. Lindley v. Seward; Henry v. Seiberling Rubber Co.; 68 C.J.S. Partnership supra note 1.

3

. Henry v. Seiberling Rubber Co.; Clinchfield Fuel Co. v. W. M. Lundy & Son, supra note 1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.2d 221, 1961 D.C. App. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-mcgregor-doniger-inc-dc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack