PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1922, 3 December 1913, Page 7

PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY.

INTERESTING JUDGMENT. (By Telecjrapli.—Press Asnociation.) Auckland, December 2. His Honour .Mr. Justieo Cooper gavo reserved judgment to-day on a. question of law iu tho case of Henry Smith v. E.R. Spriggs and (i. H. Latter, of Sydney, trading together in co-partner-ship, under tho stylo of E. R Spriggs and Co. Tho claim against the defendants was for £10L las. 4d., damages for non-delivery of a consignment of paspalum seed, and tho legal difficulty aroso over tho fact that only the defendant Spriggs had been served with a writ. Tho contract, said his Honour, was a joint one, made by a joint agent of the two defendants. A material question arose whether, under theso circumstances, any judgment could Lu given against Spriggs alone It was admitted that the service of Spriggs was not .sufficient service to justify judgment against, both defendants or against the firm. A contract made en behalf uf the firm was not binding on any ona member of tho partnership separately, but only en all tho members jointly, unless an individual partner, by holding himself out as the only member, or, by specific contract, bound himself separately from his co-partners as well as jointly with them. After quoting several authorities, LI is Honour cxp-csscid the opinion that in the present case the Court could not give judgment against Spriggs personally upon an action founded on breach of contract which did not bind him separately, but only jointly with the latter—an action in which, moreover, ho was not sued individually, but only as a joint contractor;. If reasonable but unsuccessful efforts were made to servo the hatter, the rule authorising procedure without service might perhaps apply. At present, however, tho plaintiff was not entitled to judgment against Spriggs.