A partner has no implied authority to indorse a note made payable to a co-part ner, although for firm account ; McCauley v. Gordon, 64 Ga. 221, 37 Am. Rep. 68; nor to bind the firm as a party to a note for the accommodation of or as surety for another ; Van Dyke v. Seelye, 49 Minn. 557, 52 N. W. 215 ; Presbrey v. Thomas, 1 App. D. C. 171; unless by special authority implied from the nature of the business or previous course of dealing; 3 Kent 46; Bank of Tennessee v. Saffarrans, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 597; Austin v. Vandermark, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 261; and the burden is on the holder of the instrument to show such authority ; Foot v. Sabin, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 154, 10 Am. Dec. 208 ; Me Chanics' Bk. v. Barnes, 86 Mich. 632, 49 N. W. 475; Mayer v. Bernstein, 69 Miss. 17, 12 South. 257 ; nor can a partner bind the firm by a guaranty of payment of a bill of ex change ; 3 Camp. 478; Lemke v. Faustmann, 124 Ill. App.' 624.
Direct proof is not necessary; the authori ty or ratification may be inferred from cir cumstances ; Sweetser v. French, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 309, 48 Am. Dec. 666; Darling v. March, 22 Me. 188 ; Jones v. Booth, 10 Vt. 268. Indorsement of a note for a third per son by a partner in the firm name without the knowledge of the other member, of the firm and having no connection with its busi ness, does not bind the firm; Bank of Ft. Madison v. Alden, 129 U. S. 372, 9 Sup. Ct. 332, 32 L. Ed. 725.
Borrowing money. One partner may bor row money on the credit of the firm, when it is necessary for the transaction of the business in the ordinary way ; Smith v. Col lins, 115 Mass. 388 ; Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. 393; Pahlman v. Taylor, 75 Ill. 629; Wagner v. Simmons & Co., 61 Ala. 143 ; Un ion Nat. Bk. v. Neill, 149 Fed. 711, 70 C. C. A. 417, 10 L. R. A. S.) 426; Sherwood v. Snow, Foote & Co., 46 Ia. 481, 26 Am. Rep. 155 ; but the amount must be within the usual business of the firm; Pars. (Jas.) Partn. § 125 ; but a partner in a cash busi ness, as a firm of solicitors, cannot borrow ; Smith v. Sloan, 37 Wis. 285, 19 Am. Rep. 757 ; or physicians ; Humph. 23. It is said that a partner cannot borrow to increase the firm's capital ; 2 Hare 218. A contract to borrow money in violation of a partner ship agreement is not valid, though made in furtherance of the interests of the firm ; King v. Levy (Miss.) 13 So. 282.
Checks. One partner has the implied pow er to bind the firm by firm checks drawn on its bankers ; 3 C. B. N. S. 442. Such checks must not be post-dated; L. R. 6 Q. B. 209.
Compromise. A partner may compromise with debtors or creditors of the firm ; Story, Part. § 115; Noyes v. R. Co., 30 Conn. 1 ;
Doremus v. McCormick, 7 Gill (Md.) 49.
Confession of judgment. One partner can not, by confessing a voluntary judgment against the firm, bind his co-partners ; Miller v. Glass Works, 172 Pa. 70, 33 Atl. 350 ; Mor gan v. Richardson, 16 Mo. 409, 57 Am. Dec. 235 ; Hier v. Kaufman, 134 Ill. 215, 25 N. E. 517. But a judgment so confessed will bind the partner who confessed it ; 3 C. B. 742 ; Franklin v. Morris, 154 Pa. 26 Atl. 364 ; North v. Mudge, 13 Ia. 496, 81 Am. Dec. 441; Shedd v: Bank, 32 Vt. 709; Conery v. Botch ford, 30 La. Ann. 692 ; but see Clark v. Bow en, 22 How. (U. S.) 270, 16 L. Ed. 337; and will bind the firm assets; see Wilmot v. The Oua chita Belle, 32 La. Ann. 607, where it was held that a "commercial partner" has a right to confess judgment on behalf of the firm. Only the other partner can object to it ; Farwell v. Cook, 42 Ill. App. 291. Where a judgment note has been signed in the firm name only, the plaintiff may name the individual mem bers, and judgment may be entered in this form; Miller v. Glass Works, 172 Pa. 70, 33 Atl. 350.
Contraots. A partner has the power to bind the firm by simple contracts within the scope of the partnership business ; Winship v. Bank, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. Ed. 216 ; and make a contract which will bind them as partners and also as individuals ; Morris v. Neel, 78 Ga. 797, 3 S. E. 643 ; but not a contract to convey• firm real estate ; Law rence v. Taylor, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 107.
Debts. One partner may receive debts due the firm, and payment to him by the debtor extinguishes the claim; Yandes v. Lefavour, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 371; Salmon v. Davis, 4 Binn. (Pa.) 375, 5 Am. Dec. 410 ; even after dissolution; 15 Ves. 198 ; although the debtor knew there was an agreement that one party alone was to collect and pay the debts ; Hansen v. Miller, 44 Ill. App. 550. A partner nay also bind the firm by assent ing to the transfer of a debt due to it, as the transfer of the firm's account from one bank er to another ; 2 H. & N. 326. A partner can not employ partnership funds to pay his own pre-existing debt, without the consent of his co-partners ; Filley v. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294; Thomas v. Pennrich, 28 Ohio St. 55 ; Huis kamp v. Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310, 7 Sup. Ct. 899, 30 L. Ed. 971. But in Blair v. Harri son, 57 Fed. 257, 6 C. C. A. 326, it was held that one of two co-partners could pledge the partnership property to secure his private debts, to the extent of his interest therein.