A deed of trust of partnership property to secure certain. creditors to the exclusion of others will bind the partnership, though executed by only two out of three partners; Union N. Bk. v. Bank, 136 U. S. 223, 10 Sup. Ct. 1013, 34 L. Ed. 341. Two or three mem bers of a firm have authority to mortgage partnership stock for the security of the debts of the firm ; Southern White Lead Co. v. Haas, 73 Ia. 399, 33 N. W. 657, 35 N. W. 494. A mortgage by one partner of the whole stock in trade to secure a firm debt has been held valid; Tapley v. Butterfield, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 515, 35 Am. Dec. 374.
Pledges of firm propeity. A partner may pledge its personal property to raise money for the firm ; 3 Kent 46 ; 10 Hare 453 ; 7 M. & G. 607; 3 Bradw. 261. It is thought that a partner's equitable mortgage of firm real estate, by depositing deeds of partner ship property as a pledge, would be valid; Lind. Part., 2d Am. ed. *140.
Purchases. A partner may bind the firm by purchasing on credit such goods as are necessary for carrying on the business in the usual way ; 1 Camp. 185; Feigley v. Sponeberger, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 564; Baker v. Nappies; 19 Ga. 520 ; Johnson v. Bernheim, 76 N. C. 139 ; even land; Davis v. Cook, 14 Nev. 265 ; but see Judge v. Braswell, 13 Bush (Ky.) 67, 26 Am. Rep. 185.
Servants. One partner has the implied power to hire servants for partnership pur poses; 9 M. & W. 79; Appeal of Moist's
Adiuts, 74 Pa. 166; and probably to dis his co-partner ; Lind. Part., 2d Am. ed. *147.
Specialties. As a rule, the relation of partnership gives a partner no authority to bind his co-partners by specialty; Story, Part. § 117; and see Deeds and Mortgages, supra. But he may bind his firm by an exe cuted contract. under seal, because the firm is really bound by the act, and the seal is merely evidence ; Appeal of Dubois, 38 Pa. 231, 80 Am. Dec. 478. If the seal was not necessary, it will be regarded as surplusage ; as in an assignment for creditors ; Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cra. (U. S.) 289, 3 L. Ed. 104; a mortgage of firm chattels ; Milton v. Mosh er, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 244; an assignment of a chose in action due the firm ; Everit v. Strong, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 163. A lender may disregard a specialty executed by one part ner, for a loan, and recover from the firm in assiimpsit ; Walsh v. Lennon, 98 Ill. 27, 38 Am. Rep. 75.
Warranties. It is laid down as a general rule that a power to sell does not carry with it the implied authority to bind the firm by a warranty ; Pars. Part. 4th ed. § 144. But if the partner has power to sell, his warran ty would probably bind the firm ; Pars. Partn. § 144 ; Sweet v. Bradley, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 549.