Actual notice of dissolution must be brought home, to persons who have been in the habit of dealing with the firm ; but as to all persons who have had no previous dealings with the firm, notice fairly given in the public newspapers is deemed suffi cient; Colly. Part. 6th ed. 163, n., See Rob inson v. Floyd, 159 Pa. 165, 28 Atl. 258; Cent. N. Bk. v. Frye, 148 Mass. 498, 20 N. E. 325. This notice is necessary to terminate the agency of each partner, and, consequent ly, his powers and liabilities as a member; Howell v. Adams, 68 N. Y. 314; Woodruff v. King, 47 Wis. 261, 2 N. W. 452; Southern v. Grim, 67 Ill. 106. If there is no notice of the dissolution and the retiring partner per mils the use of his name, he is liable for the acts of the continuing partner ; Hahn v. Keuefick, 48 Mo. App. 518. It is said that notice of dissolution need not be given to one who has sold goods to the firm for cash ; Merritt v. Williams, 17 Kan. 287; Clapp v. Rogers, 12 N. Y. 283; or to one who, without the knowledge of the firm, has discounted its commercial paper; City Bank v. Mc Chesney, 20 N. Y. 241.
It is not necessary to give notice of the retirement of a dormant partner from the firm, if the fact of his being a partner be unknown to all the creditors of the firm ; if it be known to some, notice to those must be given, but that will be sufficient; 1 B. & Ad. 11; Deford v. Reynolds, 36 Pa. 325; Warren v. Ball, 37 Ill. 76. But where there were an active and two dormant part ners, and the firm retained a solicitor in pending litigation, and the dormant partners retired, the solicitor never having known that they were partners and having no no tice of dissolution, the dormant partners were held liable for the solicitor's costs in curred after dissolution ; [1897] 2 Q. B. 397.
Notice of the dissolution is not necessary, in case of the death of one of the partners, to free the estate of the deceased partner from further liability ; 3 Kent 63; Wash burn v. Goodman, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 519; Dickinson v. Dickinson, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 321; nor is notice, in fact, necessary in any case where the dissolution takes place by opera tion of law ; 3 Kent 63, 67; Griswold v. Waddington, 15 Johns. (N. IL.) 57; 9 Exch, 145. Bankruptcy of a member, after dis solution, is notice of dissolution; Eustis v. Bolles,. 146 Mass. 413, 16 N. E. 286, 4 Am. St. Rep. 327.
One partner may obtain an injunction to restrain his co-partner from violating his rights under the partnership articles, even when the dissolution of the partnership ar ticles is not asked; Leavitt v. Inv. Co., 54
Fed. 439, 4 C. C. A. 425.
Effect of dissolution. The effect of dis solution, as between the partners, is to ter minate all transactions between them as partners, except for the purpose of taking a general account and winding up the concern ; Petrikin v. Collier, 1 Pa. 247; 3 Kent 62. As to third persons, the effect of a dissolution, with notice as stated supra, is to absolve the partners from all liability for future transac tions, but not for past transactions of the firm ; Maxey v. Strong, 53 Miss. 280 ; Curry v. White, 51 Cal. 530; Floyd v. Miller, 61 Ind. 225; Easter v. Bank, 57 III. 215.
It is said that a firm, notwithstanding its dissolution, continues to exist so far as may be necessary for the, winding up of its busi ness ; 11 Ves. 5; Ewell's Lind. Part. *217. The power of the partners subsists for many purposes after dissolution : among these are .. —first, the completion of all the unfinished engagements of the partnership; second, the conversion of all the property, means, and assets of the partnership existing at the time of the dissolution, for the benefit of those who were partners, according to their respec tive shares ; third, the application of the partnership funds to the payment of tlae partnership debts ; 3 Kent 57; Washburn v. Goodman, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 519. See Rid dle v. Whitehill, 135 IL S, 621, 10 Sup. Ct. 924, 34 L. Ed. 282. But although, for the purposes of winding up the concern and ful filling engagements that could not be ful filled during its existence, the power of the partners certainly subsists even after dis solution, yet, legally and strictly speaking, it subsists for those purposes only; 10 Hare 453; Bennett v. Buchan, 61 N. Y. 222; Dun lap v. Limes, 49 Ia. 177. The surviving mem bers of a 'co-partnership have the legal title to the firm property, and the right to dis pose of its assets only for the purpose of closing the business, not to continue it; Daw son v. Parsons, 66 Hun 628, 21 N. Y. Supp. 212. After dissolution a partner has the power to sell ; 4 De G. M. & G. 542; and they may sell firm realty to pay debts ; Shanks v. Klein, 104 U. S. 18, 26 L. Ed. 635.
Whether the dissolution of a partnership is per se a breach of a contract by the firm to employ a person in their service is ques tionable; 3 II. & N. 931. A contract of em ployment for a year by a firm terminates on the dissolution of the firm during the year by the death of a partner ; Greenburg v. Early, 4 Misc. 99, 23 N. Y. Supp. 1009.