And all jointly. (15)

And it only requires one stamp, if it were the bargain before it was issued that all should join. (15)

But if there were no such bargain, the addition of a fresh signature after it was once issued would make a new stamp necessary. (15)

If a bill or note is payable to several persons, not in partnership, the right to transfer is in all collectively, not (16) in any individually.

And an indorsement by and in the name of one only, will not give the indorsee a right to sue. (16)

(15) Clark v. Blackstock, Holt, 474. A note was in this form; "I promise to pay plaintiff or order, 30, with interest, value received; Thos. Jackson, Jno, Blackstock." In an action against Blackstock alone, two objections were made, one that this was the joint note of Jackson and Blackstock; and, secondly, that there should have been an additional stamp for Blackstock's signature; it was ruled that the word "I" made the note several as well as joint; and, secondly, that the necessity of an additional stamp would depend upon this, viz. whether Blackstock's signature was part of the original bargain before plaintiff took the note, or an afterthought, and it appearing to have been part of the original bargain, verdict for plaintiff.

(16) Carvick v. Vickery, Dougl. 2d edit. p. 653. n. 134. A bill was drawn by father and son, who were not partners, payable to their own order. The son alone indorsed it, and upon an action by his indorsee against the acceptor, Lord Mansfield thought an indorsement by both parties essential, and nonsuited the plaintiff. A new trial however was afterwards granted, the court, after time taken to consider, being of opinion that by making the bill payable to their own order, the father and son had made themselves partners as to this transaction; but upon

So if a bill is drawn on several persons not connected in partnership, an acceptance by one will bind him, but him (17) only.

Sect. 5. -Each partner has in general a power to bind the partnership, and therefore a bill or note by one, or an indorsement or acceptance by one will in general bind all. (18)

the second trial Lord Mansfield said he did not think the question so decided as to preclude evidence which was offered, that by the universal usage and understanding of all the bankers and merchants in London the indorsement was bad, as not being signed by both the payees, and the jury, unâ voce, declared that that was the usage and understanding, and without hearing any evidence upon the point they found a verdict for the defendant.

(17) Bull. Nisi Prius, 279. In the case of two joint traders, an acceptance by one will bind both; but if ten merchants employ one factor, and he draw a bill upon them all, and one accept it, this shall only bind him, and not the rest. Mar. 2d ed. 16. Beawes, § 228. 1st ed. p. 444.

b. 2. c. 10. § 18.

Molloy,

(18) Mason v. Rumsey and another, 1 Campb. N. P. C. 384. A bill was drawn on "Messrs. Rumsey and Co.;" and T. Rumsey, jun. wrote upon it "Accepted, T. Rumsey, sen." The present action was defended by T. Rumsey, jun. who contended that even if he were a partner, (which he denied,) this acceptance would not bind him. Lord Ellenborough told the jury, that if the defendants were partners, they were both bound by this acceptance. He said the word "accepted" alone would have been sufficient, and that the effect could not be altered by the addition of "T. Rumsey, sen." The jury found for the Plaintiff; and on motion afterwards for a new trial, on the ground of the evidence of partnership not having been sufficient, the court held the Chief Justice's direction right, and refused a rule.

And a note by one, importing to be for all, may bind the partnership, though it begin, "I promise." (19)

And a bill or note by one in the partnershipname will, as between them and an innocent holder, bind the partnership, though the partner making it was prohibited from drawing bills or notes. (20)

(19) Lord Galway v. Matthew and another, 1 Campb. N. P. C. 403. This was an action against the defendants as surviving partners of T. Whitsmith, on a note drawn thus: Sixty days after date, I pay Ld. Viscount Galway, or order, 2001. value received. For J. Matthew, T. Whitsmith, and T. Smithson (Signed) "J. Matthew." Lord Ellenborough held that it bound the whole firm. S. C. 10 East Rep. 264.

This signature by the one (presuming his authority) is a good signature by all. See Wilks v. Back. 2 East Rep. 142.

(20) Swan and others v. Steele and Wood, 7 East's Rep. 210. The house of Wood and Payne carried on under the same firm and at the same counting-house, two trades, those of wholesale grocers and cotton dealers. The defendant, Steele, was a secret partner in the latter trade, but not in the former. The house was indebted to the plaintiffs, as grocers, and to pay this debt Wood and Payne, without the knowledge of Steele, indorsed to the plaintiffs a bill which they had received on account of the cotton concern. The bill was indorsed in the usual firm of W. and P., and Steele's being a partner was unknown to the plaintiffs. Wood and Payne afterwards became bankrupts, and Payne being dead, this action, by the plaintiffs as indorsees of the bill, was brought against Steele and Wood; and on a case reserved, the only question was, whether the indorsement were good: and the court held the case too clear for argument; and Lord Ellenborough said, that in the absence of all fraud on the part of the indorsee there was no doubt that such indorsement would bind all the partners.

Or though the particular bill or note were a fraud upon the partnership. (21)

But such bills or notes will not bind the partnership as to persons who when they took them knew of the want of authority; (22)

(21) Ridley and another v. Taylor, 13 East's Rep. 175. Ord and Ewbank were linen-drapers and partners. The plaintiffs, in Nov. 1806, sold a cargo of coals to Ewbank for 347. 11s., and Ewbank in May following gave them 57. in part payment, and a promissory note for the balance. This note was dishonoured; and in payment of this balance, Ewbank, on the 7th of Nov. 1807, gave the plaintiffs a bill for 40l., dated 20th of October, 1807, drawn and indorsed by him in the partnership name, and accepted by the defendant. The bill was drawn, indorsed, and accepted, before it was produced to the plaintiffs, and it did not appear that they knew that it had been drawn and indorsed by Ewbank. Ewbank afterwards applied to the plaintiffs for the difference between the balance due, and the 40%., but they refused to pay it, until payment of the note. This bill was dishonoured; and the plaintiffs in their account debited Ewbank for the amount. Ord and Ewbank afterwards became bankrupt, and the plaintiffs now sued the defendant as acceptor. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the - court of King's Bench on a case, stating these facts. The court held, that in this case, there being no evidence of covin between the plaintiffs and Ewbank to defraud Ord, and no such gross negligence on the part of the plaintiffs in not inquiring whether Ewbank had authority to transfer the bill, as to render the transaction fraudulent, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover: and they held, that Ord or Ewbank might have been called to disprove Ewbank's authority. The plaintiffs had judgment for the amount of Ewbank's debt.

(22) Lord Galway v. Matthew and Smithson, 10 East's Rep. 264. The defendants and Whitehouse (since deceased) were in partnership as brewers. Matthew applied to the plaintiff to lend his acceptance for 2007. to enable him to pay excise duties due from the house, and promised in return to

Or of the fraud. (23)

If one partner give a partnership-bill or note for his own private debt without the knowledge of the partnership, it is a fraud upon the partnership. (23)

And though an innocent indorsee may be able to inforce payment the creditor cannot. (23)

And in such case, if an action be brought by such creditor, notice need not be given him that the consideration will be disputed; the nature of the transaction is sufficient notice to him. (23)

give the note of the firm payable four days before the acceptance. The plaintiff gave his acceptance, and Matthew drew the note and signed it for himself and partners. He then got the acceptance discounted, and applied 1807. in payment of partnership debts, reserving the rest to himself. The plaintiff (after Whitehouse's death) was obliged to take up his acceptance, and now sued the defendants on the note. Matthew suffered judgment by default. But Smithson proved that the plaintiff before he took the note had received notice of an advertisement by him warning persons not to trust Matthew on his account, and that he would no longer be liable for drafts drawn by the other partners on the partnership-account. And Lord Ellenborough held that the plaintiff having taken the note after such warning could not recover, and therefore nonsuited him; and on motion to set aside the nonsuit the court held it right, and refused a rule.

(23) Shirreff v. Wilks and others, 1 East's Rep. 48. In October, 1795, Bishop and Wilks, who were then partners, became indebted to the plaintiffs for goods sold and delivered. Robson became a partner with Bishop and Wilks, in April, 1796, and continued so until the 8th November following, when the partnership was dissolved. On 5th November, 1796, the plaintiffs drew on the partnership for the amount of their demand against Bishop and Wilks, and Bishop accepted the bill in the partnership-firm. The plaintiffs now sued the three