Drewry-Hughes Co. v. McDougall

CuabK, 0. J. The defendant Monroe wrote, on 8 October, 1902, a letter to tbe mercantile agency of N. G. Dun & Co., in response to tbeir inqury, in which, he stated that he, with others named, was a member of the firm of B. & S. McDou-gall. The defendant Monroe offered to prove that, in January, 1903, some three months prior to the time when the plaintiff sold this bill of goods to B. & S. McDougall, he, the said Monroe, saw the duly authorized agent of N. G. Dun & Co. at his town, and had a conversation with him, in which Monroe informed such agent that the letter to said N. G. Dun & Co. on 8 October was an' error; that neither he nor the others named in that letter had become members of said McDougall firm, and that none of them would be responsible for the debts of that firm, and at the same time gave the agent an oral statement of the financial condition of said firm, which the agent wrote down. It was error to exclude this testimony. Information of the letter of 8 October, 1902, was conveyed to plaintiff by said N. G. Dun & Co., and the testimony is that the plaintiff sold the goods on such information. Monroe had a right to dissolve his contemplated connection with the McDougalls, and it was competent to show that, some three months before the plaintiff sold to said firm, and, therefore, in full time to correct its previous information, Monroe informed the agent of said N. G. Dun & Co., in his town, that he was no longer a member of the McDougall firm nor responsible for its debts. The plaintiff had not, up to that time, become a creditor of the McDougalls, and did not for nearly three months later. Monroe could not, therefore,- give the plaintiff notice. He did all he could when he gave notice to the traveling agent of said N. G. Dun & Co., then in his town.- In Cowan v. Roberts, 133 N. C., 629, it was held that it was not sufficient to give notice of the retirement of a partner *287 to an employee or bookkeeper at tbe borne office of tbe seller, but tbe notice must be given to tbe sellers themselves or tbeir credit man. Here tbe defendant offered to sbow tbat notice was given to tbe traveling agent of R. Gr. Dun & Co. (to wbicb agency tbe original advice bad been given) tbat Monroe was no longer connected with tbe McDougall firm. It was tbe plaintiff’s own fault tbat it sold this bill, some three months later, without ascertaining whether there bad been any change in tbe partnership or not. If, before tbe withdrawal of Monroe, tbe plaintiff bad bad dealings with tbe McDougall firm, then, of course, notice of Monroe’s withdrawal from tbe firm must have been given to tbe plaintiff. It would be entitled to rely upon tbe status remaining unchanged until notified to tbe contrary. But here tbe first sale was made to tbe McDougalls long subsequent to Monroe’s withdrawal. He could not anticipate tbat tbe plaintiff would become a creditor, and be should have been allowed to show, as be offered, tbat in January, 1903, be notified R. G-. Dun & Co., withdrawing tbe statement made to them in bis letter of 8 October, 1902. Error.