Smith & Cheney Co. v. Schmidt

Michigan Supreme Court

Smith & Cheney Co. v. Schmidt

105 N.W. 39, 142 Mich. 1, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 630

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 21, 1905

DocketDocket No. 27

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 N.W. 39 (Smith & Cheney Co. v. Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith & Cheney Co. v. Schmidt, 105 N.W. 39, 142 Mich. 1, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 630 (Mich. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The circuit court was in error. The witnesses testified positively that, when the order for the goods was given and received, the defendants composed the copartnership. This testimony implied knowledge. It was given by one who had visited the firm’s place of business and had taken the order. One of the partners had a right to give the order and bind the partnership. Whether the other partner knew it or not is immaterial. Having given the order when they were partners, it is no defense that, in the absence of notice of dissolution, the goods were shipped after the partners had [3]*3dissolved and defendant Schmidt had retired. No notice of the dissolution was given to the plaintiff. Actual notice or knowledge of the facts sufficient to put plaintiff upon inquiry was necessary. The giving and taking of the order when the defendants were partners constituted a dealing with the firm which entitled plaintiff to actual notice. 1 Lindley on Partnership, p. 213; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), p. 177; Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102; Hall v. Heck, 92 Mich. 458; Sibley v. Parsons, 93 Mich. 538; Elkinton v. Booth, 143 Mass. 479.

Where goods were ordered before dissolution, but shipped after dissolution, without any change in the terms of the order, defendants were held liable. Goodspeed v. South Bend Chilled Plow Co., 45 Mich. 237. But where goods were ordered before dissolution, and the goods shipped after dissolution, but on different terms from the original order, the retiring partner was held not bound, as it created a new contract. Goodspeed v. Wiard Plow Co., 45 Mich. 322.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

Moore, C. J., and McAlvay, Blair, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The circuit court was in error. The witnesses testified positively that, when the order for the goods was given and received, the defendants composed the copartnership. This testimony implied knowledge. It was given by one who had visited the firm’s place of business and had taken the order. One of the partners had a right to give the order and bind the partnership. Whether the other partner knew it or not is immaterial. Having given the order when they were partners, it is no defense that, in the absence of notice of dissolution, the goods were shipped after the partners had [3]*3dissolved and defendant Schmidt had retired. No notice of the dissolution was given to the plaintiff. Actual notice or knowledge of the facts sufficient to put plaintiff upon inquiry was necessary. The giving and taking of the order when the defendants were partners constituted a dealing with the firm which entitled plaintiff to actual notice. 1 Lindley on Partnership, p. 213; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), p. 177; Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102; Hall v. Heck, 92 Mich. 458; Sibley v. Parsons, 93 Mich. 538; Elkinton v. Booth, 143 Mass. 479.

Where goods were ordered before dissolution, but shipped after dissolution, without any change in the terms of the order, defendants were held liable. Goodspeed v. South Bend Chilled Plow Co., 45 Mich. 237. But where goods were ordered before dissolution, and the goods shipped after dissolution, but on different terms from the original order, the retiring partner was held not bound, as it created a new contract. Goodspeed v. Wiard Plow Co., 45 Mich. 322.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

Moore, C. J., and McAlvay, Blair, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 N.W. 39, 142 Mich. 1, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-cheney-co-v-schmidt-mich-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack