Bynum v. . Clark

Eaikcloth, C. J. Prior to April 1, 1897, the defendant John F. Clark and others, were in a partnership business under the name of John F. Clark, agent, and had a running account with the plaintiffs, and on April 1, 1897, said co-partners were duly incorporated as “The Manchester Cotton Mills,” and the said corporation became the owners of the business and assets of said copartnership. After the formation of said corporation, the defendant Clark ordered goods from the plaintiffs — signing J. E. Clark, agent. The plaintiffs were never actually notified of the formation of said corporation, nor that it had succeeded to the business of John E. Clark, agent, nor of the dissolution of the said partnership. The only question is: “Can the plaintiffs recover, they having had no actual notice of tire dissolution of the partnership or of the formation of the corporation? We think they can. *353 In such cases, actual notice must be given, especially to those ■who had previous dealings with the partnership. The case is governed by Eliason v. Sexton, 105 N. C., 356, and Alexander v. Harkins, 120 N. C., 452. Affirmed.