A partner in a banking firm died. The surviving partners continued to trade without making any changes. They later fell into bankruptcy. Creditors of the bank at the date of the death still traded with the bank with varying changes in their banking accounts.
Held: The fact that they continued to trade with the continuing partners did not discharge the estate of the deceased partner. Grant MR said: ‘I apprehend by the general mercantile law, a partnership contract is several as well as joint. That may probably be the reason why courts of equity have considered joint contracts of this sort, that is joint in form, as standing on a different footing from others.’
Grant MR
[1816] 1 Mer 572, [1814-23] All ER Rep 1, [1816] 35 ER 781
Worldlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – City Discount v McLean CCP 16-Jun-1874
The plaintiffs, a discount company, were in the habit of discounting bills for S. In consideration that the plaintiffs would advance money to a certain amount to S on the deposit of a lease of S’s premises, the defendant guaranteed any part of the . .
See Also – Baring v Noble 9-Mar-1831
The creditor of a partnership, in which one of the partners dies, and the surviving partners afterwards become bankrupt, has a right to resort to the assets of the deceased partner for payment, without regard to the state of the account as between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.229249
