him their broker at Chicago, and to induce Vaughan to give up and surrender the business in that city, Raymond paid Vaughan $2,500. Negotiations were had between these parties through Mr. Harrison, of the firm of Harrison, Havemeyer & Co., and his testimony leaves no doubt that the payment of said sum of $2,500 by Raymond to Vaughan was for a surrender by Vaughan to Raymond of his (Vaughan's) right to act as broker for the Franklin Sugar Refinery in the Chicago market. We cannot undertake to review this evidence in detail, but it leaves no question in our minds that the dissolution of the firm did not take place at any time prior to the settlement before spoken of in respect to the future conduct of the business.

We find no error in this record, and the judgment of the appellate court will be affirmed.

GRISWOLD et al. v. WADDINGTON et al.

(Supreme Court of New York, 1818. 15 Johns. 57.)

This was an action of assumpsit. The defendant Joshua Waddington was an American citizen, residing in New York, and the defendant Henry Waddington a British subject, residing in London. The defendants had been in partnership together, and carried on their business at London under the firm of Henry Waddington & Co., and at New York under the firm of Joshua Waddington & Co. The plaintiffs were citizens of the United States, resident in New York, and the demand sought to be recovered in this action was a balance of account arising on transactions between the plaintiffs and Henry Waddington, or the firm of H. Waddington & Co., during the late war. between this country and Great Britain. The jury found

*

a verdict for the plaintiffs for $17,757.09, subject to the opinion of the court on a case made, with liberty to either party to turn the case into a special verdict, with power to the court to grant a new trial or a venire de novo. * * *

*

SPENCER, J. * * Upon the fullest reflection which I have been able to give to the subject, my opinion is that the declaration of war between the United States and Great Britain produced a suspension during the war, or, ipso facto, a dissolution of the partnership previously existing between the defendants, so that the one is not responsible upon the contract, express or implied, of the other. It will be perceived that this proposition assumes the fact that the partnership between the defendants had not become dissolved by the efflux of the time, or the acts of either of the partners, although this point is, in itself, very questionable. The better conclusion from the evidence is that the partnership expired by its own limitation during the war; and the existence of the war would, at all events, dispense with the public notice which is, in general, necessary to the valid dissolution of a partnership.

The case discloses that the firm of Henry Waddington & Co. consisted of Henry and Joshua Waddington; that Henry is a British subject, resident before and during the war in London, conducting the partnership concerns there, whilst the defendant was resident here. The negotiations which gave rise to the present suit took place in England, and exclusively with Henry Waddington, during the late war between this country and Great Britain.

It was admitted on the argument, and so the fact undoubtedly is, that the proposition I have advanced is neither supported nor denied by any judicial decisions or elementary writer of the common law; but, if I mistake not, it is supported by the strongest reasons, and by necessary analogy with adjudged cases.

The first inquiry is, what are objects and ends of partnerships? They are entered into with the view that, with the joint funds, skill, and labor of the several partners, the interests of the concern may be advanced and promoted. There may be, and frequently are, different inducements influencing each partner. One may have more capital and credit. Another may have more skill, activity, and experience. The one may choose to be a dormant and inert partner, furnishing an equivalent for the services and skill of the other, and leaving the business entirely to his control and management. But, unexplained as this partnership is, we must understand it to be a union with a view to the employment of the joint capital, labor, and skill of both the partners for the purposes of internal and external commerce between this country and Great Britain. That the object of the partnership embraced both these objects of internal and external trade would seem to be unquestionable from the local position of the partners.

That the death, insanity, and bankruptcy of one of the partners. operates as a dissolution was not questioned in the argument; and a respectable elementary writer, Mr. Watson, is of opinion that the marriage of a feme sole partner would produce the same consequence. The cases of Pearce v. Chamberlain, 2 Ves. 33, and Sayer v. Bennet, Watson, 382, and several other cases cited by him, all go to establish the general principle that death, insanity, or bankruptcy, work a dissolution of the partnerships, and they proceed on the principle that the other partners are not bound to admit the representatives of a deceased or insane partner into the concern; the confidence having been originally placed in the personal skill and assistance of those no longer able to afford it.

Let these principles be applied to the present case, and it would seem that the same result is inevitable. In what situation did the war put the defendants, as regarded each other? Most undeniably the two nations, and all their citizens or subjects, became enemies of each other, and the consequence of this hostility was that all intercourse and communication between them became unlawful. This is not only the acknowledged principle of the law of nations, but is also a part of the municipal jurisprudence of every country. I need not cite cases

in support of a position which has so repeatedly been recognized in the English courts, and in our own, possessing as well admiralty as common-law jurisdiction. Another consequence of the war was that the shipments made by each of the partners would be liable to capture and condemnation by the cruisers of the government of the other; and another very serious evil attended them: No debts contracted in the partnership name could be recovered in the courts of either nation; they not having, in the language of the law, a persona standi in judicio, whilst they were amenable to suits in the courts of both nations. The Hoop, 1 C. Rob. Adm. 201. It is true, the same disability to sue for debts due the firm antecedent to the war would exist. This however, does not weaken the objection. It remains still an important item, in considering whether a partnership exists, when the new debts created are to be liable to the same disability. It appears that Joshua Waddington is a citizen of the United States, and it has been already mentioned that Henry Waddington is a Britishborn subject. They owed different allegiances, and it became part of their duty to lend all their aid, in a vigorous prosecution of the war, the one to the United States, and the other to Great Britain; and it appears to me that it would not comport with policy or morality that the law should imperiously continue a connection, when by its very continuance it would afford such strong inducements to a violation of that fidelity which each owes to his government.

Again, all communication and intercourse being rendered unlawful, and it being a well-established principle that either partner may, by his own act, dissolve a partnership, unless restrained to continue it for a definite period by compact, in what manner could such intentions be manifested during the war. It might, indeed, be made known to the públic of one of the countries, but it could not be notified to the public of the hostile country; and thus, unless the war produced a dissolution, he would be responsible, notwithstanding he had the desire to dissolve the connection, merely from inability to make known that determination-an inability produced by events utterly uncontrollable. When the objects and intentions of an union of two or more individuals to prosecute commercial business are considered, when it is seen that an event has taken place, without their fault and beyond their control, which renders their respective nations, and along with them the defendants themselves, enemies of each other; that all communication and intercourse has become unlawful; that they can no longer co-operate in the conduct of their common business, by affording each other advice, and are kept hoodwinked as to the conduct of each other; that the trade itself in which they were engaged has ceased to exist; that, if they enter into any contracts, they are incapable of enforcing their performance by an appeal to the courts; that their allegiance leads them to support opposite and conflicting interests-I am compelled to say that the law cannot be so unjust as to pronounce that partnership so circumstanced, when all its ob

jects and ends are prostrated, shall continue; and with the clearest conviction upon my mind, and in analogy to the cases to which reference has been made, I have come to the conclusion that the partnership between the defendants was, at least, suspended, and 7. incline to the opinion that it was, ipso facto, dissolved by the war, and, consequently, that the defendant J. Waddington is not liable to this action. *

*

If the law worked a suspension or dissolution of the partnership, every person dealing with Henry Waddington was bound to take notice. of the fact; and with the old dealers of the firm there was knowledge of all the material facts which enter into the determination of the cause.

Judgment for the defendant. `

EUSTIS v. BOLLES et al.

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1888. 146 Mass. 413, 16 N. E. 286, 4 Am. St. Rep. 327.)

Contract by William T. Eustis against Charles H. Bolles, George F. Wilde, and Francis D. Hall, to recover the balance of a promissory note. Hearing in the Supreme Judicial Court, before C. Allen, J., who reported the case to the full court.

MORTON, C. J. This is a suit upon a noté dated January 1, 1880, signed by "B. Callender & Co." It was signed and delivered to the plaintiff by B. Callender, and at that time the only parties composing the firm were the said Callender and the defendants Bolles and Wilde. The defendant Hall, who was formerly a partner, had withdrawn from the firm on July 2, 1877, and notice of the dissolution was given by publication in the Boston Daily Advertiser, but no personal notice was given to the plaintiff. The note in suit was given in renewal of a former note which the plaintiff held at the time of the dissolution. It further appears that the defendant Hall, in December, 1877, filed his petition in bankruptcy, was adjudicated a bankrupt and thereupon, in June, 1878, received his discharge. Upon these facts we are of the opinion that the defendant Hall is not liable in this action. The only ground upon which he could be held is that the plaintiff had no legal notice of the dissolution of the old firm. If the firm had not been previously dissolved, the bankruptcy of Hall would have dissolved it. The bankruptcy, like the death of a partner, dissolves the partnership, and as it is a public, notorious proceeding, all creditors are bound to take notice of it, and no further notice need be given. The publication of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings is legal notice to all persons by which they are bound. Story, Partn. §§ 332-336; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. 89, 94, 35 Am. Dec. 296; Marlett v. Jackman, 3 Allen, 287; Butler v. Mullen, 100 Mass. 453. The plaintiff was a creditor of Hall at the time of his bankruptcy. He is presumed to

have had notice of it, and this is notice that at that time the partnership had been dissolved. It is as effective a notice that the old copartnership no longer existed as it would be if the bankruptcy itself had worked the dissolution. *

*

We are therefore of opinion that the defendant Hall is entitled to a judgment.

The defendants Bolles and Wilde rely upon discharges under our insolvent laws. Their discharges were obtained under the statute of 1884, c. 236, as amended by the statute of 1885, c. 353. These statutes made a material change in our insolvent laws.

*

We are therefore of the opinion that the discharges of the defendants Bolles and Wilde are a bar to the plaintiff's claim against them. Judgment for defendants.

SECTION 3.—BY JUDICIAL DECREE.

BARING et al. v. DIX.

(In Chancery, at the Rolls, Sir Lloyd Kenyon, 1780. 1 Cox, Cas. 213.) On a bill filed by two partners against the third, praying an account of all partnership dealings, and that the partnership might be dissolved, and the leasehold premises, on which the trade had been carried on, might be sold, it appeared that the partnership had been originally instituted for the purpose of spinning cotton under a patent which had been obtained in that behalf, but that after several attempts the invention totally failed, and was now entirely given up. The defendant, Dix, refused to consent to the dissolution of the partnership, or the sale of the leasehold premises, notwithstanding it appeared that the mills must otherwise remain wholly unoccupied, and the rent be payable without any profit arising to answer it. And the counsel for the plaintiffs apprehended that they could not insist upon the dissolution of 'the partnership, or the sale of the premises, against the consent of the defendant; but his honor ordered "that upon the defendant's refusing to concur in the sale of the premises, and the dissolution of the copartnership, it should be referred to the master to inquire and state to the court whether the said copartnership business could now be carried on according to the true intent and meaning of the said articles of copartnership." And his honor declared that, if the master should report that it could not be so carried on, he would direct the premises to be sold, and would dissolve the copartnership. Reg. Lib. A. 1785, fol. 393.

N. B.-On the 30th of May following the defendant, Dix, signified his consent to the dissolution.