Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 SOCIETY.
Subject_3 Whether a partner in a private company, who has renounced his share from the expiration of a term fixed by the contract when any of the partners had an option so to do, can be subjected for debts contracted under the firm assumed at their commencement, after he had ceased to be a partner?

Robert Armour
v.
Doctor John Gibson

Date: 29 November 1774

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

[Fac. Coll., VI. 367; Dictionary, 14,575.]

Gardenston. I wish that there was law for such a publication as the petitioner mentions; but I do not see that any such thing is established in the practice of merchants in Scotland: besides, there is no evidence of fraud here. The general rule of law is, that every man contracts on the faith and credit of the person with whom he contracts.

Kaimes. There are means of dissolving as well as forming a company: publication is not required in the one case more than in the other.

President. Eodem modo solutum quo colligatum is a rule of law: if there is once a recorded instrument establishing a copartnery, there might be required a publication in order to set it aside. If this private contract was known, the creditor ought to have looked into the books to see whether it was altered; without this, he could not be in safety.

Coalston. In many cases, a publication might be necessary: but there is no fraud here; the defender went out when the affairs of the company were in a flourishing state.

On the 29th November 1774, “The Lords suspended the letters simpliciter;” adhering to Lord Kennet's interlocutor.

Act. J. M'Laurin. Alt. R. M'Queen.