This case concerns a dispute over a debt for an engine, involving questions of whether defendant Hall was a partner with Mobley in a saw-mill business and the validity of Florida attachment proceedings affecting the engine's seizure and sale. The court held that partnership cannot be proved by general reputation or rumor, that declarations of an alleged agent are inadmissible without independent evidence of agency, and that recorded attachment proceedings must be proved by certified transcript rather than oral testimony. It found the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony about the agent's representations and in excluding evidence of the Florida proceedings, resulting in reversal and remand.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over whether one partner in a farming partnership had implied authority to hire a physician for the farm laborers and bind the firm to pay for those medical services. The court held that the trial judge's jury instruction was erroneous and reversed the judgment, remanding the case. The opinion explained that farming partnerships are non-trading associations where a partner's authority to bind the firm must be shown by express agreement, necessity for carrying on the business, or established custom, none of which were proven here. It further noted that any promise to pay from partnership funds would not violate the statute of frauds but did not alter the outcome on the authority issue.

business & regulatory