1819.

and others

v.

party so impleaded in this Court might apply by bill to the Court for relief, when the remedy 1807. COLEBROOKE which he would obtain would be in the nature of an injunction, and then the great difficulty opGENERAL posed to the plaintiffs in the present case could not arise, namely, as to what judgment the Court could pronounce, or whether it could make any decree at all.

ATTORNEY

and others.

9apla 575

1807.

98th February.

He ultimately adverted to the ground on which the case for the Crown was put at the commencement, that if the Court of Exchequer had ever had a jurisdiction to interfere in the way now prayed, that power had been virtually, if not expressly, taken away by the particular provisions and general tenor of the 25th Geo. III., and · was transferred entirely and exclusively to the Treasury; and that therefore this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present bill.

Cur. adv. cult.

The Court (consisting of Macdonald, Lord Chief Baron, and Hotham, Thomson, and Graham, Barons) this day pronounced judgment, by declaring the

Demurrer over-ruled.*

* The Attorney-General then put in a full answer on the merits, but the cause was afterwards put an end to by compromise.

ROOTH

1819.

ROOTH V. QUIN and JANNEY.

Friday, 50th April.

partnership

tect them

by one in the

THIS was an action by the indorsee against the Semble. A defendants as acceptors of two bills of exchange, firm may prodated the 5th January, 1814. The defendant selves from liability to pay Quin had suffered judgment to go by default. bills accepted Janney pleaded the general issue. On the trial name of all at the Sittings after Trinity Term 1816, before notice by Mr. Baron Richards, a verdict was found for the tisement in plaintiff for the amount of both bills, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case:

the firm, by

public adver

newspapers,

proved to have by the payee

been received

and indorsees, that the part

nership is dis solved; although the

dissolution has not appeared and that even

in the Gazette:

where the part

for a definite

The defendants carried on business as cotton manufacturers at Manchester, in co-partnership, for several years, before the bills in question were drawn. The bills were accepted by the defendant Quin, in the co-partnership name, and indorsed nership is not to the plaintiff. The partnership between the de- and limited fendants commenced in the month of February might be dis 1803. There was no written agreement between sure, but is for a stipulated them as to the duration of the partnership; but continuing the terms upon which they began, and agreed luble only on to carry it on, were, that it should be for the tions, which

period, or

solved at plea

term, disso

certain condi

have not been performed: so that it is doubtful whether the partnership continued to exist in point of law or not, and there was no special contract among themselves, that the firm was not to liable for the acts of individual partners.

In an action against other partners on a bill accepted by one in the name of the firm, the admissions in his answer filed to a bill in equity against him, are not admissible in evidence against the rest.

If the plaintiff, in such an action, be an indorsee, the defendants must shew that the payee had notice of the resolution of the rest of the firm to dissolve the partnership, and be no longer answerable for any such bills: and if that he not done, it is not sufficient to prove that the indorsee had notice, for he is entitled to avail himself of any circumstance which would operate in favour of the payee.

1819.

ROOTH

v.

QUIN and JANNEY.

term of five years certain, and for such further time as they should agree upon; and that if either party should, after the expiration of the said term of five years, be desirous of withdrawing himself from the concern, he might do so upon giving six months notice of such his intention to the other party, or forfeiting the sum of 2001. The capital to be advanced by Janney was 6001. and by Quin 3001. and each was to have an equal moiety of the profits, and the said sums were actually advanced.

On the 5th June, 1813, the defendant Janney, who wished the partnership to be put an end to, caused to be inserted in three of the Manchester papers this advertisement. "The partnership heretofore subsisting between James Quin and Joseph Janney, both of Manchester, in the county of Lancaster, manufacturers and merchants, under the firm of Quin and Janney, is this day dissolved." Several copies of these newspapers were taken at a news room, where the plaintiff was very much in the habit of reading the public papers. The plaintiff, on or about the 5th of June, 1813, received a circular letter, dated 4th June, addressed to him by Janney, in these words: "The partnership heretofore subsisting between Mr. James Quin and myself, as manufacturers and merchants, under the firm of Quin and Janney, was this day dissolved. I have to request you will not sell any goods on the credit of the above partnership, as I shall not be answerable for any debts which, from henceforth may be contracted in the

partnership

partnership name, or on the partnership credit." The defendant Janney also about the same time sent a notice of the dissolution of the co-partnership, signed by himself, to the London Gazette office, to be inserted in the London Gazette; but the person who had the conducting of the London Gazette refused to insert it, as it was not signed by the defendant Quin.

No notice was given by the defendant Janney to the defendant Quin, of his intention to withdraw himself from the said partnership six months before the said 4th day of June, nor did it appear that any notice at all was given by the defendant Janney to the defendant Quin, of such intention: nor did the defendant Janney pay the said sum or penalty of 200l. to the defendant Quin. The defendant Quin, after the 4th of June, 1813, continued to trade, using the firm of Quin and Janney, and the bill for 150l. was accepted by him in that name, after the said 4th day of June, 1813. The plaintiff's answer read on the trial by the defendant, stated that the plaintiff had been informed and believed that the bill was drawn in payment of a debt due from the defendant before the said 4th of June, 1813, to William Kirkpatrick (the drawer, payee, and indorser.) Both the bills were fairly indorsed to the plaintiff, for at full and valuable consideration, and without any collusion with the defendant Quin.

When the defendants had closed their case, the plaintiff, who at first made out à prima facie case

1819.

ROOTH

t.

QUIN

and JANNEY.

1819.

ROOTH

t.

QUIN and JANNEY.

only on the bills, offered, in evidence, a bill in Chancery, filed by the defendant Janney, against the defendant Quin and the plaintiff, and the defendant Quin's answer thereto. The admissibility of this answer in evidence was objected to by the defendant Janney, who defended separately. That answer, amongst other matters, stated, that the defendant Quin refused a proposal by the defendant Janney, to dissolve the partnership, unless all the co-partnership accounts were adjusted by reference to an accountant; and thereupon the said defendant Janney took upon himself to attempt to put an end to it; and on the 2d of June, 1813, entered the partnership warehouse during the night, and took away the books and accounts, and the stock and utensils of the trade, and sold the same, no part of the proceeds of which he had paid to the defendant Quin, and inserted the said notice in the newspapers, and sent the circulars above mentioned:-that in the month of March, 1818, the defendant Quin gave the defendant Janney 120l. to pay part of the debt due to Kirkpatrick, which debt was due in May, 1812, for goods sold, and for which the above mentioned bill of 150l. was given in payment, but that such sum was appropriated by the said defendant Janney, to his own use;-that since June, 1813, the defendant Quin had carried on trade under the firm of Quin and Janney, for the benefit of the said partnership, not conceiving the same to have been regularly dissolved, and that a debt of 1891. was contracted after the 4th of June, 1813, that is to say, in January,