(g) Doe v. Hulme, 2 Man. & R. 483.

(A) Goodtitle v. Woodward, 3 B. & Ald. 689. But one joint-tenant may appoint a bailiff to distrain for rent due all the joint tenants. Robinson v. Hof-man, 4 Bing. 562. And one partner may authorize a clerk to draw or accept notes or bills, in the name of the company. Tillier v. Whitehead, 1 Dallas, 269.

(i) Alderson v. Pope, 1 Camp. 404; Ex parte Waitman, 1 Mont. & A. 364; Figgins v. Ward, 2 Cr. & M. 424; Carter v. Southall, 3 M. & W. 123.

(j) Barney v. Currier, 1 Chipman (Vt.), 315; Gilby v. Singleton, 3 Litt. 250.

(k) Quinn v. Fuller, 7 Cush. 224. - So, in equity, service of a subpoena upon one partner may upon notice be made good service upon his copartner abroad. Carrington v. Cantillon, Bunb. 107; Coles v. Gurney, 1 Madd. 187. And see Lansing v. McKillup, 7 Cowen, 416.

(l) Porthouse v. Parker, 1 Camp. 82. See Dabney v. Stidger, 4 Sm. & M. 749. But it is otherwise in case of mere joint indorsers, who are not partners; notice in such case must be given to both. Shepard v. Hawley, 1 Conn. 368. Even, it seems, to hold either. Bank, etc. v. Root, 4 Cowen, 126.

(m) Coster v. Thomason, 19 Ala. 717; Nott v. Douming, 6 La. 684. And in such case it has been said, that one partner may, after dissolution, waive demand and notice for the other partners as well as for himself. Darling v. March, 22 Me. 184. But this may be doubted.

(n) Gowan v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 176. Notice of the dishonor of a note given to the surviving partner of a firm fixes the liability of a partnership, and binds the representatives of the deceased partner. Dabney v. Stidger, 4 Sm. & M. 749; Cocke v. Bank of Tennessee, 6 Humph. 51.

(nn) Bowman v. Cecil Bank, 3 Grant, 33.

1 A release under seal by one partner, however, is binding. See ante, p. * 186. And in States where seals have been abolished or made nugatory by statute, the rule does not apply. Pearson v. Post, 2 Dak 220, 248. Nor does it apply to instruments which have the same legal effect without a seal as with the addition of one. Hunter v.

for himself and his copartner, in the presence of his copartner, that will hind them both. (o)

In some cases very slight circumstances appear to he sufficient to affect a party with the liabilities of partnership. (p) But the mere fact of persons giving a joint order for goods will not make them liable as partners, if it appear otherwise that the seller trusted to them severally. (q) Nor is a person made *a partner by a stipulation that a firm will be governed by his advice. (r)

(o) Ball v. Dunsterville, 4 T. R. 313; Swan v. Steadman, 4 Met. 548. See Potter v. McCoy, 26 Penn. St 458; Freeman v. Carhart, 17 Ga. 348. In Gram v. Seton, 1 Hall, 262, the court seem inclined to maintain the general power of a partner to affix a seal for the firm in the partnership business. See also Purviance v. Sutherland, 2 Ohio (N. s.), 478.

(p) Parker v. Barker, 1 Br. & B. 9, 3 Moore, 226. - Persons are to be treated as partners if they so conduct and hold themselves out to others, whether their contract would make them so or not. Stearns v. Haven, 14 Vt. 540. See notes (q), (r). and (t),-post.

(q) Gibson v. Lupton, 9 Bing. 297. In this case the two defendants, who were not general partners, gave a joint order to the plaintiff's agent for the purchase of some wheat. The order contained these words, " Payment for the same to be drawn upon each of us in the usual manner." In reply to this order, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants: "We have made a purchase for your joint account." At the same time they drew a bill upon each defendant for one third of the price, each bill being for one moiety of the third. They afterwards, on the wheat being shipped, drew like bills for the remainder of the price, having previously written: "We hold you both harmless for the advance up to the period of lading and invoice." The bill of lading, on coining into the possession of the defendants, was indorsed by each of them. Under these circumstances, the Court of Common Pleas held that the defendants were only severally liable on the contract, each being responsible for the purchase of a moiety only of the cargo. See also Hopkins v. Smith, 11 Johns. 161: Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 id. 266; Mclver v. Humble, 16 East, 169. - So where in an action of assumpsit, C was charged as a partner with A, on the authority of B, who informed the plaintiff before he furnished the goods, that they were in partnership, and, at the trial, B's clerk proved that B had been in the habit of discounting bills for A, and that in discounting a bill at one time for A, he had introduced C, to him as his partner, but that the only connection in trade between B and the defendants was in discounting bills; Lord Kenyon said that this evidence was not sufficient to charge C as A's partner; that the introduction of C to B should be taken secundum subjectam mat-eriam, that is, as applying to a transaction in which A was concerned with B, the discounting of bills, to which transaction only it should be confined. De Berkom v. Smith, 1 Esp. 29; see also Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. 266,

(r) Barklie v. Scott, 1 Hud. & B. 83. Because it does not hold him out to the world as a partner, nor give him any share in the profits, nor empower him to dissolve, alter, or affect the partnership. - So the fact that several persons associated together to run a line of stagecoaches, that they had a general meeting, and that debts were contracted on account of the company, do not prove a partnership as between themselves. Chandler v. Brainard, 14 Pick. 285; Clark v. Reed, 11 id. 446. - And the fact that two per sons sign a note jointly was held not

Parker, 7 M. & W. 322; Gibson v. Warden, 14 Wall, 244; Walsh v. Lennon, 98 Ill 27; Moore v. Stevens, 60 Miss. 809; Woodruff v. King, 47 Wis. 261. Sec Schmertz v. Schreeve, 62 Pa. 457; Ash v. Guie, 97 Pa. 493, 500.

It is generally held that parol authority or ratification of the other partners is sufficient to make the deed that of the firm, and such authority or ratification may be implied from conduct. Guuter v. Williams, 40 Ala. 561; Jeffreys v. Coleman, 20 Fla. 536; Sutlive v. Jones, 61 Ga. 676; Herzog v. Sawyer, 61 Md. 344: Holbrook v. Chamberlain, 116 Mass. 155; Williams v. Gillies, 75 N. Y. 197; McDonald v. Eggle-ston, 26 Vt. 154; Kasson v. Estate of Brocker, 47 Wis. 79.