Liability to third persons on partnership contracts arises from the actual existence of the partnership in question, by express acquiescence, by ratification and by estoppel. If a partnership exists in fact, the partners are liable on contracts made within the scope of the partnership business by any one of the partners, if the adversary party knows of no limitation on his authority,1 even where the adversary party did not know who such partners were when he entered into such contract.2 If the contract is within the actual scope of the partnership business, the members are liable thereon, without any reference to principles of estoppel.3 Thus if a partner has authority to obtain certain information the partnership is liable for acts done by him to obtain such information.4 Illustrations of the power of a partner to bind the firm within the general scope of its business are given in subsequent sections.5

3 Tomlinson v. Broadsmith

(1896), 1 Q. B. 386.

1 Flagg v. Stowe, 85 111. 164; Baxter v. Rollins, 90 Ia. 217; 48 Am. St. Rep. 432; 57 N. W. 838; Warren v. French, 6 All. (Mass.) 317; Mace v. Heath, 30 Neb. 620; 46 N. W. 918; Pooley v. Whitrnore, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 629; 27 Am. Rep'. 733.

2 Blanchard v. Kaull, 44 Cal. 440; Bigelow v. Gregory, 73 111. 197; Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344; Kaiser v. Bank, 56 Ia. 104; 41 Am. Rep. 85; 8 N, W. 772; Johnson v. Carter, 120 Ia. 355; 94 N. W. 850; Parrish v. Maupin (Ky.), 42 S. W. 1121; Holbrook v. Ins. Co., 25 Minn.

229; Weir Furnace Co. v. Bodwell, 73 Mo. App. 389; Jones v. Beekman (N. J. Eq.), 47 Atl. 71; Central, etc., Bank v. Walker, 66 N. Y. 424; Ash v. Guie, 97 Pa. St. 493; 39 Am. Rep. 818; Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wis. 162.

3 Chicago, etc., Bank v. Kinnare, 174 111. 358; 51 N. E. 607; reversing, 67 111. App. 186; Slater v. Clark, 68 111. App. 433; Patterson v. Swickard (Ky.), 41 S. W. 435; Vetsch v. Neiss, 66 Minn. 459; 69 N. W. 315.

4 Hamlyn v. Houston (1903), 1 K. B. 81.

5 See Sec. 946, 947.