-
Smith, C. J. (after stating the case). The order was given and the contract entered into some days before the dissolution, and was binding upon all the members of the firm, so that it was unaffected by the notice of the fact given to the plaintiff soon after. Such notice would protect against further dealings in the name of the firm by any member of it to whom credit was given. The future delivery was in consummation of the partnership contract, and gave it efficacy as the act of all the members of it, and involving a common responsibility. This result follows, unless upon countermand, the plaintiffs should have stopped and been content with compensation for damages sustained at that point. But the countermand given by (J. F. Griffin, who continued to act for all in the execution of the common contract upon the plaintiffs’ representation of the nature of their undertaking to fill the order, as understood among business men, and the impracticability of their countermanding their orders in getting the assorted articles was withdrawn, and they were directed to proceed in furnishing *144 the goods under the defendants’ order, as was done on or about the 10th day of October.
Without, therefore, giving undue effect to this special contract, according to the course of trade, upon general principles, its obligation rests upon all the parties who .assumed it, and was not removed or impaired by the dissolution which soon after took place and which prevented the formation of new contracts on behalf of the firm by one or more members of it.
The delivery then completed the contract, and entitled the plaintiff to the price of the goods.
There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Document Info
Judges: Smith
Filed Date: 9/5/1889
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/11/2024