Simonds v. Strong, Chamberlain & Co.
This text of 24 Vt. 642 (Simonds v. Strong, Chamberlain & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It seems to be perfectly well settled, both in England and this country, that a retiring partner, who was known to be a member of the firm, must publish notice of such retirement, in some newspaper where advertisements are inserted, and published in the place where the business is done, in order to shield himself from liability for the future debts of the firm, to those even with whom they had had no previous dealings. Godfrey v. Turnbull, 1 Esp. 371. Weighton v. Puller, 1 Stark. 375. 2 Chitty 121. Leason v. Holt, 1 Stark. 186. Lansing v. Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. 300. Graves v. Merry, 6 Cowen 701. Bristol v. Sprague, 8 Wend. 423.
And as to those with whom the firm have had dealings, actual notice is requisite. Prentiss v. Sinclair, 5 Vt. 149.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 Vt. 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simonds-v-strong-chamberlain-co-vt-1852.