A mortgage of firm property by a partner in his own name, conveys no title. (nn)

The act of each partner is considered as the act of the whole partnership, or of all the partners, only so far as that act was within the scope of the business of the firm; (o) but one copartner may bind the firm in matters out of their usual course of business, if they arose out of and were connected with their usual business. (p) Or if they receive the express sanction and confirmation of the firm. (q) And if a firm owe a debt, it is held that a partner binds the firm by their note for that debt, given by him against the wishes of his partners. (qq) Where any creditor of one member of a firm takes from his own debtor, either in payment or as security for his debt, the paper of the firm, the presumption of law is, that he took it in fraud of the firm; and without proof of their interest, or their assent and authority (which may be circumstantial), the firm will not be held. (r) And if a partner * applies partnership funds to the payment of his own debts, this act is void, although the creditor did not know that the funds belonged to the partnership. (s)1 And a away himself, but that instead of bringing them to the shop of himself and his copartner, he immediately pawned them to raise money for his own use. Gazelee, for the defendant Gibson, contended that this could not be considered a partnership debt, as the goods had not been bought on the partnership account, and the credit appeared to have been given to Jephson only. He allowed the case would have been different had the goods once been mixed with the partnership stock, or if proof had been given of former dealings upon credit between the plaintiff and the defendants. Lord Ellen-borough: " Unless the seller is guilty of collusion, a sale to one partner is a sale to the partnership, with whatever view the goods may be bought, and to whatever purposes they may be applied. I will take it that Jephson here meant to cheat his copartner; still the seller is not on that account to suffer. He is inno cent; and he had a right to suppose that the individual acted for the partnership." Verdict for the plaintiff. - See McCul-lough v. Somerville, 8 Leigh, 415; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. 89, Tapley v. Butterfield, 1 Met. 518; Anderson v. Tompkins, 1 Brock. 456; Pierpont v. Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. 234; Kirby v. Inger-soll, 1 Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 172; Whitton v. Smith, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 231; Duncan v. Clark, 2 Rich 587.

(nn) Deeter v. Sellers, 102 Ind. 458; Clark v. Houghton, 12 Gray, 38.

(o) Hannan v. Johnson, 18 E. L. & E. 400; s. c. 2 E. & B. 61; Goodman v. White, 2 Miss. 163; Miller v. Hines, 15 Ga. 197; Alliance Bank v. Kearsley, L. R. 6 C. P. 433.

(p) Sandilands v. Marsh, 2 B. & Ald. 673

(q) Ex parte Peele, 6 Ves. 602.

(qq) Partin v. Luderloh, 6 Jones, Eq. 341.

(r) Gansevoort v. Williams, 14 Wend. 33; Minor v. Gaw, 11 Sm. & M. 322; Clay v. Cottrell, 18 Penn. 408; Homer v Wood, 11 Cush. 62; Butter v. Stocking, 4 Seld. 408; Commonwealth Bank v. Law, 127 Mass. 72; Blodgett v. Sleeper, 67 Me. 499.

(s) Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. 229;

1 It is at least clear that any one receiving in settlement of a claim against an individual partner, money or property which belongs to the partnership, with knowledge of that fact, cannot retain it. See, in addition to cases cited in notes (s) and (t), Kendal v. Wood, L. R. 6 Ex. 243; Heilbut v. Nevill, L. R. 4 C. P 354, 5 id. 478; Hurt v Clarke, 56 Ala. 19; Johnson v. Hersey, 70 Me. 74; Forney v. Adams, 74 Mo. 138; Todd v. Lorah, "5 Pa. 155; Hartley v. White, 94 Pa. 31; Cotzhausen v. Judd, 43 Wis. 213.

purchaser who buys partnership property from a partner, knowing that the transaction was a fraud on the firm, may be held a trustee for the firm. (t)

Partners may ha made liable for the torts of a copartner if connected with contract, and done apparently in due course of the business of the firm, and the existence of the copartnership and its business is that which gives the opportunity for the wrong and injury inflicted upon the innocent party. (u)l It has

Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. 34; Evernghim v. Ensworth, 7 Wend. 326; Halstead v. Shepard, 23 Ala. 558; Buck v. Mosley. 24 Miss. 170; Filden v. Lahens, 9 Bosw, 436; Whitmore v. Adams, 17 Ia. 567; Burleigh v. Parton, 21 Texas, 585.

(t) Croughton v. Forrest, 17 Mo. 131.

(u) Willet v. Chambers, Cowp. 814. And see McClure v. Hill, 36 Ark. 268; Rolfe v. Dudley, 58 Mich. 208; Kuhn v.

Weil, 73 Mo. 213; Lothrop v. Adams, 133

Mass. 471. So where one partner purchases such articles as might be of use in the partnership business, and instantly converts them to his own separate use, the partnership is liable. Bond v. Gibson, 1 Camp. 185. A employed B and C, who were partners as wine amd spirit merchants, to purchase wine and sell the same on commission. C, the managing

It is also frequently said that it is immaterial that the settlement was made by the creditor of the individual partner in good faith and without knowledge that the money or property belonged to the firms. Allen v. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20; Cannon v. Lindsey, 85 Ala. 198, Brewster v. Mott, 5 Ill. 378; McNair v. Platt, 46 Ill.211; Ackley v. Staehlin, 56 Mo. 558; Caldwell v. Scott, 54 N. H. 414; Liberty Savings Bank v. Campbell, 75 Va. 534, and cases cited in notes (s) and (t). But in most of these cases as a matter of fact the creditor did have knowledge.

In Locke v. Lewis, 124 Mass. 1, Gray, C. J., makes a thorough examination of the cases and states (at p. 7) a qualification of this principle as follow.-: " But if the private creditor has no knowledge that the property belongs to the partnership, and the partnership has entrusted its property to one partner in such a manner as to enable him to deal with it as his own, and to induce the public to believe it to be his. then the other partners fall within the rule that when one of two innocent persons must suffer, that one must suffer who by his acts or conduct has afforded the means of committing the fraud." See also Kendal v. Wood, L. R. 6 Ex. 243.