On dissolution personal notice should be given to those who have dealt with the firm before dissolution and know of the connection of the partner in question with such firm, if the retiring partner wishes to avoid liability on subsequent contracts.1 Thus an attorney retained by the old firm,2 a person who has made one loan to the old firm,3 a bank where the firm cashed drafts,4 or borrowed money,5 and a depositor with a dissolved banking firm,6 are each entitled to personal notice. Where personal notice should be given, a notice published but not known by the party dealing with the firm,7 or a notice mailed but not received,8 even if a red line is drawn around the notice,0 or a notice to two commercial agencies and a local item in one or two newspapers,10 or the general notoriety of the dissolution,11 is each insufficient. The contents of new letter-heads of the firm showing a change of members is sufficient if such letterheads were sent to the customer in question, and he had been notified that the formation of certain contracts was delayed owing to a contemplated reorganization.12 A notice of a change in the partnership given to a traveling salesman as agent of the adversary party,13 is sufficient. Notice by publication is sufficient as to all other persons,14 in order to free the retiring partners from liability for future contracts. When a dormant partner withdraws, notice is not necessary to those who did not know he was a partner.15

9 Barnes v. Trust Co., 169 111. 112; 48 N. E. 31; affirming 66 111. App. 282.

10 Conrad v. Buck, 21 W. Va. 396.

1 Court v. Berlin (1897), 2 Q. B. 396; Birckhead v. De Forest, 120 Fed. 645; 57 C. C. A. 107; Neal v. Smith, 116 Fed. 20; Camp v. Southern, etc., Co., 97 Ga. 582; 25 S. E. 362; Arnold v. Hart, 176 111. 442; 52 N. E. 936; affirming 75 111. App. 165; Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102; 55 Am. Dec. 53; Bank v. Weston, 172 N. Y. 259; 64 N. E. 946; Second National Bank v. Weston, 161 N. Y. 520; 76 Am. St. Rep. 283; 55 N. E. 1080; Ellison v. Sexton, 105 N. C. 356; 18 Am. St. Rep. 907; 11 S. E. 180; Tobin v. McKinney, 14 S. D. 52; 91 Am. St. Rep. 688; 84 N. W. 228; Amidown v. Osgood, 24 Vt. 278; 58 Am. Dec. 171.

2 Court v. Berlin (1897), 2 Q. B. 396.

3 Thayer v. Goss, 91 Wis. 90; 64 N. W. 312.

4 Camp v. Southern, etc., Co., 97 Ga. 582; 25 S. E. 362.

5 Bank v. Weston, 172 N. Y. 259; 64 N. E. 946.

6 Arnold v. Hart, 176 111. 442; 52 N. E. 936; affirming 75 111. App. 165. Even one who has made only two such deposits. Tobin v. McKinney, 14 S. D. 52; 91 Am. St. Rep. 688; 84 N. W. 228.

7 H. H. Nevens & Co. v. Bulger, 93 Me. 502; 45 Atl. 503; Rose v. Coffield, 53 Md. 18; 36 Am. Rep. 389.

8 Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571; 25 Am. Rep. 246.

9 Haynes v. Carter, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 7; 27 Am. Rep. 747.

Where dissolution takes place by operation of law, notice is not necessary.16 So where a firm is dissolved by bankruptcy proceedings instituted against one partner, such proceeding is notice to all creditors.17 So on the death of one partner notice of dissolution is not necessary.18

In the absence of necessary notice a retiring partner is liable for contracts entered into after dissolution with those who are ignorant thereof,19 especially where the old firm name is re-

10 Citizens' National Bank v. Weston, 162 N. Y. 113; 56 N. E. 494 (citing Bank v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 201; 45 L. R. A. 547; 54 N. E. 40; Mill Co. v. Harris, 124 X. Y. 280; 26 N. E. 541).

11 Pitcher v. Barrows, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 361; 28 Am. Dec. 306.

12 Edwards v. Wheeler's Estate, 130 Mich, 219; 89 N. W. 679.

13 Ach v. Barnes, 107 Ky. 219; 53 S. W. 293.

14 Watkinson v. Bank, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 482; 34 Am. Dec. 521; Ellison v. Sexton, 105 X. C. 356: 18 Am. St. Rep. 907; 11 S. E. 180: New York, etc.. Bank v. Crowell. 177 Pa. St. 313: 35 Atl. 613: Thayer v. Goss, 90 Wis. 90; 64 N. W. 312.

15 Gorman v. Davis, etc., Co., 118 N. C 370; 24 S. E. 770. To excuse a dormant partner from notice he must have been unknown or not generally known. Rowland v. Estes, 190 Pa. St. 1ll; 42 Atl. 528.

16 Little v. Hazlett, 197 Pa. St. 591; 47 Atl. 855.

17 Eustis v. Bolles, 146 Mass. 413; 4 Am. St. Rep. 327; 16 N. E. 286.

18 Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Mfg. Co., 116 Ga. 176; 42 S. E. 415; Marlett v. Jackman, 3 All. (Mass.) 287; Little v. Hazlett, 197 Pa. St. 591; 47 Atl. 855.

19 Bloch v. Price. 32 Fed. 562; Young v. Clapp, 147 111. 176; 32 N. E. 187; 35 X. E. 372: Shapard Grocery v. Hynes, 3 Ind. Ter. 74; 53 S. W. 486; Dickson v. Dryden. 97 Ia. 122; 66 X. W. 148; Turner v. Gill. 105 Ky. 414; 49 S. W. 311; H. H. Nevens & Co. v. Bulger. 93 tained,20 or the retiring member holds himself out as a member of the firm.21 The notice must be given before liability is incurred by the adversary party to relieve the retiring partner. Thus where notice of retirement was given after A made a contract with the old firm, and after such notice A shipped goods in performance of such contract, the retiring partner is held to be a surety.22 If the notice is given but the dissolution never took place,23 or if the retirement of the partner was merely ostensible to permit him to carry out an illegal scheme,24 none of the partners are thereby relieved from liability. While dissolution with proper notice generally prevents further liability of a retiring partner, he is liable to the amount of money left in the business.25