Of course, the power to receive money im plies the power to receipt for the firm; Story, Partn. § 115.
Deeds. One partner has no implied au thority to bind his co-partners by a. deed, even for a debt or obligation contracted in the ordinary course of commercial dealings within the scope of the partnership business; 3 Kent 47; McNaughten v. Partridge, 11 Ohio 223, 38 Am. Dec. 731; McDonald v. Eg gleston, 26 Vt. 154, 60 Am. Dec. 303. Such an instrument binds the maker only ; Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. 393. 'But such a deed may be ratified ; Wilcox v. Dodge, 12 Ill. App. 517 ; and this consent or adoption may be by parol; McDonald v. Eggleston, 26 Vt. 154, 60 Am. Dec. 303 ; Cady v. Shepherd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400, 22 Am. Dec. 379. It binds the firm if they were present at the execu tion; 3 Ves. 578. The fact that the partner ship articles are under seal does not give such authoriti; 7 Term 297; unless they contain a particular power to that effect ; One partner may convey by deed property of the firm which he might have conveyed with out deed. The seal in such a case would be surplusage; Purviance v. Sutherland, 2 Ohio bt. 478; Lawrence v. Taylor, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 107; Milton v. Mosher, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 244; he may assign a mortgage in payment of a firm debt, or release a mortgage; Smith v. Stone, 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 310; Halsey v. Fair banks, 4 Mas. 206, Fed. Cas. No. 5,964. See infra under Release. One partner may ac knowledge a deed for the firm; Sloan v. Ma chine Co., 70 Mo. 206.
So a partner may sometimes execute under seal a paper, as a charter party, which "is' exclusively a mercantile transaction, and always in the course of trade" ; T. U. P. Charlt. 163, 4 Am. Dec. 705 ; or a release of a firm debt, as incident to the power to collect it; 2 Co. 68; per Kent, C. J., in Pier son v. Hooker, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 68, 3 Am. Dec. 467; Allen T. Cheever, 61 N. H. 32 ; Dyer v. Sutherland, 75 III. 583; Smith v.1 Stone, 4 Gill. & J. (Md.) 310; Fluck v. Bond, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 207 ; Foster's Curator v. Ri sou, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 321; but see Brayley v. Goff, 40 Ia. 76; and though not originally valid to bind the firm it may be made so by previous authority or ratification ; Sterling v. Bock, 40 Minn. 11, 41 N. W. 236 ; see Fore v. Hitson, 70 Tex. 517, 8 S. W. t92; which
may be implied from circumstances; Mc Donald v. Eggleston, 26 Vt. 154, 60 Am. Dec. 303. Such release is not effective if made in consideration of a debt due to the partner himself ; Gram v. Cadwell, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 489 ; nor if made by one of a legal firm ; Remington v. R. Co., 109 Wis. 154, 84 N. W. 898, 85 N. W. 321. As a release by one part ner is a release by all ; Wood v. Goss, 21 Ill. 604; Thrall v. Seward, 37 Vt. 573 ; so a release to one partner is a release to all ; Clagett v. Salmon, 5 .Gill. & J. (Md.) 314 ; Wiggin v. Tudor, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 444.
Distress. Where a lease has been granted by the firm, any partner may distrain or ap point a bailiff to do so; 4 Bing. 562, and cases there cited.
Firm property. Each partner has the pow er to dispose of the entire right of his co partners in the partnership effects, for the purposes of the partnership business and in the name of the firm ; Story, Part. § 9 ; Lam bert's Case, Godb. 244 ; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass;) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296; Graser v. Stellwagen, 25 N. Y. 315 ; Tapley v. But terfield, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 515, 35 Am. Dec. 374; and the fact that he appropriated the price to the payment of private debts did not invalidate the sale as against a creditor of the partnership ; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296; but this gen eral power seems to be modified by modern cases so as to limit it to sales made in the course of, or in furtherance of, the partner ship business ; Creath v. Kolb, 70 Mo. App. 296; Freeman v. Abramson, 30 Misc. 101, 61 N. Y. Supp. 839 ; and in some states snch blanket sales are forbidden by statute ; Doll v. Mercantile Co., 33 Mont. 80, 81 Pac. 625; Phillips v. Thorp, 12 Okl. 617, 73 Pac. 268. See SALES. A bona fide sale of all the part nership effects by one partner to another is valid, although the firm and both partners are at the time insolvent ; Howe v. Lawrence, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 553, 57 Am. Dec. 68 ; Allen v. Center Valley Co., 21 Conn. 130, 54 Am. Dec. 333 ; Ferson v. Monroe, 21 N. H. 462. But an insolvent partner was enjoined from selling the property pending an accounting ; Taylor v. Russell, 119 N. C. 30, 25 S. E. 510.