Potts v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 9, 1891

Potts v. Taylor, 140 Pa. 601 (Pa. 1891)

21 A. 443; 1891 Pa. LEXIS 879

McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

We think judgment was properly entered upon the verdict. It was not seriously denied that Bast was a member of the firm *604of Jeremiah Taylor & Co. up to October 4, 1884; that no notice of the dissolution of the firm had been given; and that the plaintiffs were holders for value of the note in controversy, before maturity. This would entitle the plaintiffs to recover, unless notice in some way had been brought home to them that Bast was making an improper use of the firm name. No such notice in fact was alleged, but it was contended there was enough on the face of the note, with other circumstances, to put Frederick A. Potts & Co. upon inquiry. The fact that the latter had previously received several bills from the firm, all of which were in the handwriting of Jeremiah Taylor, amounts to little. The fact that the note was drawn to the order of Bast, amounts to less: Haldeman v. Bank, 28 Pa. 440; Moorehead v. Gilmore, 77 Pa. 118. The latter proposition is fully discussed in those cases.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: W. R. POTTS v. AMANDA TAYLOR
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: (a) A negotiable note was drawn in the name of “ J. Taylor & Co., per E. Bast,” payable to the order of Bast, who had been, but prior to the date of the note had ceased to be, a member of said firm. The note was then negotiated by Bast, and the proceeds applied to his individual use: 1. The plaintiff, a customer of said firm, and a bona fide purchaser of the note before maturity, in due course of business and without notice that Bast had ceased to be a partner, was entitled to recover from the firm; and the fact that the note was drawn to the order of Bast created no duty of inquiry.