A nominal partner, or one held out to the world as such without actual participation of profit and loss, is of course held, generally, as responsible for the debts of the partnership.1 But one who not being a partner holds himself out to certain persona as a partner, is liable as such only to those who give credit to the firm in the belief that he is a partner;1 and it is said that this belief may be inferred as to any one dealing with the firm, from the general notoriety of his alleged partnership. (ff) It has been determined that where two or more persons appear to the public as partners, and there is a stipulation between them, that one of them shall not have any share of the profits, nor pay any portion of the losses, he is not liable to the creditor of the firm who before giving credit knew of this stipulation; because such creditor has no right to fix upon him a responsibility against his bargain and intention, which bargain and intention were known to the creditor. (g) An admission by a person that he is a partner in a firm is not conclusive against him, though made to the creditor, if made after the debt for which it is sought to make him liable, was contracted; otherwise, if made before the credit is given. (h)

(e) Parkin v. Carruthers, 3 Esp. 248; Graham v. Hope, 1 Peake, Cas. 154; Bernard v. Torrance, 5 G. & J. 383; Lucas v. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 280; Stables v. Eley, 1 C. & P. 614; Taylor v. Young, 3 Watts, 339; Amidown v. Osgood, 24 Vt. 278; Simonds v. Strong, 24 Vt. 642; Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102; Johnson v. Totten, 3 Cal. 343. And a partner whose name is not used in a firm is still liable for debts contracted subsequently to his retirement, with persons who knew of his previous connection, but who had no notice of his retirement. Davis v. Allen, 3 Comst. 168. The principle upon which this responsibility proceeds, is the negligence of the partners in leaving the world in ignorance of the fact of dissolution, and leaving strangers to conclude that the partnership is continued, and to bestow faith and confidence on the partnership name in consequence of that belief. See 3 Kent, Com. 66; Princeton v. Gulick, 1 Harrison, 161. See post, note (y), p. * 204, and ante, note (d), p. *169.

(f) Thompson v. Percival, 3 Nev. & M. 167; Evans v. Drummond, 4 Esp. 89; Harris v. Farnell, 15 E. L. & E. 70, s. c. 15 Beav. 31; Yarnell v. Anderson, 14 Mo. 619; Crooker v. Crooker, 52 Me. 267. See also Ludington v. Bell, 77 N. Y. 138.

1 If he has taken part, consented, or acquiesced in such holding out. Martyn v. Gray, 14 C. B. n. s. 824; Nicholson v. Moog, 65 Ala. 471; Holland v. Long, 57 Ga.