Story Case

William Brown and Henry Felton were partners, conducting a small milk delivery business. Each had charge of a wagon. While Felton was making a delivery to customers, he went several blocks out of his way to carry a trunk to the depot for a friend. At the station the horse became frightened and ran away, because of Felton's carelessness in not having it properly hitched to a post. The runaway horse collided with and seriously damaged, a vehicle, belonging to Clarence Hogue. The latter brought suit against both partners for the wrong done. Can he recover against Brown, because of the firm responsibility?

Ruling Court Case. Locke Vs. Steams, Volume 1 Metcalfe Reports, Page 560; Same Case, Volume 35 American Decisions, Page 382

G. L. Stearns, H. L. Stearns and G. C. Hall were partners, engaged in the business of manufacturing oil and selling linseed meal. The plaintiff made arrangements with one of the defendants, who was acting for the partnership, for the purchase of a quantity of linseed meal. This partner, in the absence of his copartners, delivered to the plaintiff an inferior article, called teel seed meal, mixed with the linseed in such a way as to deceive the plaintiff, who purchased a quantity and paid for it as linseed meal, without knowledge of such mixture. This was an action brought against all the defendants, seeking to recover damages caused by the deceit of one of them.

Mr. Justice Shaw delivered the opinion of the Court: "The rule is laid down generally in a recent compilation of good authority, that, though a principal in general is not liable criminally for the act of his agent, yet he is civilly liable for the neglect, fraud, deceit or other wrongful act of his agent in the course of his employment, though, in fact, the principal did not authorize the practice of such acts. But the wrongful acts must be committed in the course of the agent's employment. As to the other point, which is indeed little more than a further application of the same principle, it is laid down as the general rule that one partner is liable civilly for damages sustained by the deceit or the fraudulent act of his copartners done within the scope of his general partnership authority." It was, therefore, held that the plaintiff might recover damages against all the defendants jointly, since the mixing of the meal was a fraudulent act.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

If a partner is acting within the course of the partnership business, he will render his copartners liable on torts, even though he may exceed his actual authority. As in the case of Locke vs. Steams, above, the partner had no authority whatsoever to tell the plaintiff in that case that he was selling him linseed, when in fact, he was selling him something else. However, he was acting in the course of the partnership business, because he was attempting to carry on the business and, so far as the third person knew, he was carrying on the business as authorized. If one partner acts within the apparent scope of his authority; that is, if he is doing the thing within the course of his partnership business, then all of the partners are liable, even though the other partners expressly forbade the doing of the act. Of course, if what the partner is doing, has nothing to do with the partnership business, then the other partners are not liable for his acts.

In the Story Case, Brown is not liable for the injury, because the accident occurred while Felton was acting entirely without the scope of his partnership business. If the accident had occurred while Felton was going on his usual milk route, it would be a partnership act, but if he went in a direction not necessary to carry out the milk business, it would not be a partnership act, and Brown is not liable.