THE FIRM AND FIRM NAME. It may be that the names of all the members of the partnership appear in the name or style of the firm, or that the names of only a part appear, with the addition of "and company," or other words indicating a participation of others, as partners, in the business ; God dard v. Pratt, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 428; or that the name of only one of the partners, with out such addition, is the name of the firm. It sometimes happens that the name of neither of the partners appears in the style of the firm; 9 M. & W. 284. In some states no partner is permitted to transact business in the name of a person not interested in the firm.
The proper style of the firm is frequently agreed upon in the partnership articles; and where this is the case, it becomes the duty of every partner, in signing papers for the firm, to employ the exact name agreed upon ; Story, Partn. § 202. This may be necessary, not only to bind the firm itself ; Story, Partn. § .102; but also to prevent the partner signing from incurring a personal liability both to third persons and to his co partners; 11 Ad. & E. 339; Pothier, Partn. nn. 100,. 101. Where persons associate them selves together and carry on business under a common name, and the association is not a corporation, they may be regarded as part ners, whatever name they may have adopt ed ; Carico v. Moore, 4 Ind. App. 20, 29 N. 928.
So, the name which a partnership assumes, recognizes, and publicly uses becomes the le gitimate name of the firm, not less so than if it had been adopted by the articles of co partnership; Le Roy v. Johnson, 2 Pet. (U•. S.) 198, 7 L. Ed. 391; Folk v. Wilson, 21 Md. 538, 83 Am. Dec. 599 ; and a partner has no implied authority to bind the firm by any other than the firm name thus acquired..; 9 M. & W. 284; Munroe v. Williams, 35 S. C. 572, 15 S. E. 279; McLinden v. Wentworth, 51 Wis. 170, 8 N. W. 118, 192. Wherefore, where a firm consisted of J B & C H, the partnership name being J B only, and 0 H accepted a bill in the name of "J B & Co.," it was held that J B was not bound thereby ; 9 M. & W. 284. See In re Warren, 2 Ware
(Day. 325) 322, Fed. Cas. No. 17,191. If no firm name is designated, each partner has implied power to use an appropriate one; Meriden N. Bk. v. Gallaudet, 120 N. Y. 298, 24 N. E. 994; and the name so chosen be comes the firm name and the only one by which the partnership may be bound ; 9 Mees. & W. 284.
If the firm have no fixed name, a signing by one, in the name of himself and company, will bind the partnership; Austin v. Wil liams, 2 Ohio 61; Holland v. Long, 57 Ga. 36; and a note in the name of one, and signed by him "For the firm, etc.," will bind the company ; Caldwell v. Sithens, 5 Blackf. (Ind.)•99. Where the business of a firm 'is to be carried on in the name of B & D, a signature of a note by the names and sur names of the respective parties is a sufficient signature to charge the partnership ; 3 C. B. 792. Where a written contract is made in the name of one, and another is a secret partner with him, both may be sued upon it ; Graeff v. Hitchman, 5 Watts (Pa.) 454.
Where partners agree that their business shall be conducted in the name of one per son, whether himself interested in the part nership business or not, that is the partner ship name, and the partners are bound by it ; Rogers v. Cott, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 322 ; Little ' Grocer Co. v. Johnson, 50 Ark. 62, 6 S. W. 231. By agreement among themselves, the indi vidual names of partners, or of any one of them, may be used to bind the firm and cre ate obligations good against the partnership; Severson v. Porter, 73 Wis. 70, 40 N. W. 577. Where the name used is the name of one of the partners, and he does business also on his own private account, a contract sign ed by that name will not bind the firm, unless it appears to have been entered into for the firm ; but, if there be no proof that the con tract was made for the firm, the presump tion will be that it was made by the part ner on his own separate account, and the firm will not 'be responsible ; Pars. (Jas.) Partn. 76; Mifflin v. Smith, 17 S. & R. {Pa.) 165 ; Winship v. Bank, 5 Pet. (II. S.) 529, 8 L. Ed. 216.