Insolvency. It has been held that the dis charge of the partners in insolvency, as indi viduals, does not relieve them from liability for the firm debts; Glenn v. Arnold, 56 Cal. 631.
The United States bankrupt law of 1898 provides that partnership property shall not be administered in bankfuptcy, unless all of the members have been adjudged bankrupt or the consent is given of those who have not been, and this has been held to apply only where all the partners were bankrupt; In .re Mercur, 122 Fed. 384, 58 C. C. A. 472. The act also provides for bankruptcy of a partnership, even though each member of the firm had been adjudicated bankrupt. A discharge of an individual partner in bank ruptcy discharges him from liability on part nership obligations; In re Kaufman, 136 Fed. 262.
Judgments. The rule is that a judgment obtained against one partner on a firm lia bility is a bar to an against his co partners on the same obligation; 3 De G. & J. 33; Mottle v. Hollins, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 11, 33 Am. Dec. 684 ; Williams v. Rogers, 14 Bush (Ky.) 777; see contra, except when they are abroad and cannot be sued with effect ; Lind. Part., 2d Am. ed. *255 ; Yoho v. McGovern, 42 Ohio St. 11; 4 De G. & S. 199; and this is so even if the other partners were not known to him. But in Pennsyl vania and other states this rule is changed by statute, and what are termed the "Joint Debtor Acts" are held to aptly to partner ship debts and under them a judgment which is not against all of the partners does not ex tinguish the obligation of those not joined; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160, 23 L. Ed. 271; Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 231, 18 L. Ed. 783 (changing the rule of Sheehy v. Man deville, 6 Cra. [U. S.] 254, 3 L. Ed. 215).
Where one partner is sued and judgment is given for him, the creditor may still have recourse to the others; 2 H. & C. 717.
Mismanagement. As a rule, a partner is not liable to the firm for the mismanagement of its business ; Houston v. Polk, 124 Ga. 103, 52 S. E. 83; Peters v. McWilliams, 78 Va. 567; Lyons v. Lyons, 207 Pa. 7, 56 Atl. 54, 99 Am. St. Rep. 779 ; see infra, Torts. Because it is unreasonable to hold a part ner, who acts fairly and for the best inter-. ests of the firm according to his judgment, liable for a loss thus unwittingly occasioned; Lyles v. Styles, 2 Wash. C. C. 224, Fed. Cas. No. 8,625. So for a loss caused by his culpa
ble negligence or breach of duty, a partner is personally liable in an accounting between the members of the firm; Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 70, 34 S. E. 828; 49 L. R. A. 468, 81 Am. St. Rep. 777 ; Finn v. Young, 50 Wash. 543, 97 Pac. 741; though not for mere omis sion or neglect ; Iman v. Inkster, 90 Neb. 704, 134 N. W. 265 ; Northen v. Tatum, 164 Ala. 368, 51 South. 17.
Notice. A retiring ostensible partner re mains liable to persons who have had deal ings with the firm and who have no notice of his retirement; Stewart v. Sonneborn, 51 Ala. 126; Stall v. Cassady, 57 Ind. 284; Shamburg v. Ruggles, 83 Pa. 148. Some cas es hold that the retiring partner becomes, as to creditors who have notice of the agree ment of another partner to assume the debts, a surety merely and entitled to the rights of one ; Sinith v. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42, 24 Am. Rep. 529; Preston v. Garrard, 120 Ga. 689, 48 S. E. 118, 102 Am. St. Rep. 124, 1 Ann. Cas. 724; Millerd v. Thorn„ 56 N.• Y. 402; [1894] App. Cas. 586 ; while in other cases it is held that the debtors cannot change their relations to the debt without the con sent of the creditors ; McAreavy v. Magril, 123 Ia. 605, 99 N. W. 193; and therefore the agreement between the partners cannot change their liability as principal debtors ; McAreavy v. Magril, 123 Ia. 605, 99 N. W. 193; Dean & Co. v. Collins, 15 N. D. 535, 108 N. W. 242, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49, 125 Am.
St. Rep. 610, 11 Ann. Cas. 1027; Rawson v. Taylor, 30 Ohio St. 389, 27 Am. Rep. 464. Another view is that a creditor having knowl edge of the agreement must exercise reason able diligence and good faith in enforcing his right against the partner who assumed th6 debts ; Grotte v. Weil, 62 Neb. 478, 87 N. W. 173.
Actual notice by the retiring partner is not necessary to escape liability to new custom ers ; Wade, Notice 226 ; Pars. Part. § 317; even though the business is continued in the same firm name ; Cook v. State Co., 36 Ohio St. 135, 38 Am. Rep. 568. As a general rule, notice to one partner of any matters relating to the business of the firm is notice to all; Howland v. Davis, 40 Mich. 546; Gowan v. Jackson, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 176; Hubbard v. Galusha, 23 Wis. 398; even if two firms have a common partner; West Branch Bk. v. Fulmer, 3 Pa. 399, 45 Am. Dec. 651.