In a firm of Secor, Swan & Co., Secor was a nominal partner only. Goods were sold to the firm under the supposition that this Secor was the Secor who had formerly been a member of the firm but lately retired. However, in a suit against the firm, Secor, nominal partner, was made a party defendant, and set up the defense that no credit had been extended to the firm on account of his nominal connection with it. Nevertheless, he was held liable, the court saying:

"Perhaps a reasonable rule might be stated thus: Where one is held forth to the world as a partner, the first question is, was he so held out by his own authority, assent, or connivance, or by his negligence?

19 Johnson vs. King, 6 Humphrey 233; Winston vs. Ewing, 1 Ala., 129; Day vs. McQuillan, 13 Minn., 205; Sheedy vs. Second Bank, 62 Mo., 17; Myers vs. Smith, 29 Ohio St., 120;

Towne vs. Leach, 32 Vt., 747. 20 Stevens vs. Perry, 113 Mass., 380; Straus vs. Kerngood, 21 Grat., 584; contra: Weaver vs. Weaver, 46 N. H., 188.

If by his authority, consent, or connivance, the presumption is absolute that he was so held out to every creditor or customer. If so held out by his own negligence only, he should be held only to a creditor who had been actually misled thereby." 21