* When a partner retires from a firm, notice is usually given by public advertisement, or by letters to the customers of the firm, or both; and generally, in the case of a retiring partner as in that of a dissolution, actual notice should be given to all customers of the firm, and also customary notice by advertisement; (cd) but sufficient lapse of time may supply the want of notice, as in one case where eleven years had passed since the retirement. (ee) A party having such notice cannot hold the retiring partner to a responsibility for a credit given to the firm after such retirement and notice. (d) It also seems to be settled that *such retiring partner is not held to a creditor who has no knowledge of such retirement, provided the retirement was actual and in good faith, and the retiring partner did all that was usual or proper to give the public and customers notice of his retirement. But if the retiring partner gives no such notice, then a customer of the firm accustomed to trade with the firm on the responsibility of all the partners, including him who has retired, and not knowing of his retirement, may hold him for a debt contracted with the firm after his retirement. (e) Whether a new customer can so hold him is not so certain. Generally, he cannot; but if the new customer was brought to the firm by the responsibility of this partner, which responsibility he knew to have existed, and had a right to suppose existed still, which right grew out of the laches of the retiring partner, and no negligence or want of diligence was imputable to the creditor, it would seem on general principles that the creditor had a right to hold him responsible as a partner. It would be difficult to distinguish on principle such a case from that of a former customer creating a new debt.

(bb) Harvey v. Varney, 98 Mass. 118.

(cd) This question is much considered in Scheifflin v. Stevens, 1 Wins. 106. See also Zollar v. Janvrin, 47 N. H. 324.

(ce) Farmers' Bank v. Green, 1 Vroom, 316.

(d) Notice of the withdrawal of a dormant partner is not necessary. Magill v. Merrie, 5 B. Mon. 168; Kennedy v. Bohannon, 11 B. Mon. 120; Scott v. Col-mesnil, 7 J. J. Marsh. 416; Little v. Clarke, 36 Penn. St. 114. [Except to those who knew of his connection with the firm. Nussbaumer v. Becker, 87 Ill. 281; Vac-caro v. Toof, 9 Heiskell, 194.] - Hut it is otherwise as to ostensible partners. To affect a creditor who has formerly traded with the firm, the notice of the retirement of an ostensible partner must be proved to have been actual Scarf v. Jardine, 7 App. Cas. 345; Nicholson v. Moog, 65 Ala. 471 , Holtgreve v. Wintker, 85 Ill. 470; Strecker v. Conn, 90 End 469, Pecker v. Hall, 14 Allen. 532: Austin v Holland, 69 N. Y. 571 , Haynes v. Carter, 12 Heisk. 7; Roakes v. Bailey, 55 Vt. 542; Watkin-son v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 4 Whart 482. But see Jenkins v. Blizard, 1 Stark. 418. A newspaper notice accidentally reaching a bank director is not equivalent to actual notice to the hank; but it seems it would be, if the notice was actually served on him, with directions to com-municate it to the board. National Bank v. Norton, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 572. - Publishment of the dissolution in a newspaper will not per se be sufficient, although it may with other circumstances go to the jury as evidence of actual notice. See Graham v. Hope, 1 Pcake, Cas. 154; Lovejoy v. Spofford, 93 U. S. 430; White v. Murphy, 3 Rich. L. 369; Hutchins v. Hank of Tennessee, 8 Humph. 418; Shurlds v. Tilson, 2 McLean, 458; Grin-nan v. Baton Rouge Mills Co. 7 La. An. 638 As to all persons who have had no dealings, and given no credit to the firm, publishment of the dissolution is sufficient Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. 300; Prentiss v. Sinclair, 5 Vt. 149; Shurlds V. Tilson. 2 McLean, 458 , Watkinson v. Bank of Penn-sylvania, 4 Whart. 482; Mowatt v How land, 3 Day, 353; Ellis v Broneon, 40 Ill 455; Polk v. < >liver, 56 Miss. 566 , 1 leering v. Flanders, 49 N. II 225. See also City Bank of Brooklyn v. McChesney, 20 N. Y. 240. As to notice generally, see Uhl v. Harvey, 21 Am. L. Reg. N S and the elaborate note appended thereto.

If a creditor of a firm, knowing of the retirement of a partner, receives for his debt the negotiable paper of the remaining partner or partners, the presumption is that he intends to discharge the retiring partner. (/)

For the liability of an incoming partner, see post, Section XII.