{
  "id": 11273820,
  "name": "BYNUM & PASCHAL, v. JOHN F. CLARK and W. D. CLARK, Partners",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bynum v. Clark",
  "decision_date": "1899-12-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "352",
  "last_page": "353",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 N.C. 352"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658771
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N. C., 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652797
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/105/0356-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1718,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.394,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0189641752386648e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5446807902700119
    },
    "sha256": "019892d00ea2f313f94bb800fe403d2c439db904d13275081ff1c82815de945a",
    "simhash": "1:bb5508fca4541f7c",
    "word_count": 283
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:42:03.891072+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BYNUM & PASCHAL, v. JOHN F. CLARK and W. D. CLARK, Partners."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eaikcloth, C. J.\nPrior to April 1, 1897, the defendant John F. Clark and others, were in a partnership business under the name of John F. Clark, agent, and had a running account with the plaintiffs, and on April 1, 1897, said co-partners were duly incorporated as \u201cThe Manchester Cotton Mills,\u201d and the said corporation became the owners of the business and assets of said copartnership. After the formation of said corporation, the defendant Clark ordered goods from the plaintiffs \u2014 signing J. E. Clark, agent. The plaintiffs were never actually notified of the formation of said corporation, nor that it had succeeded to the business of John E. Clark, agent, nor of the dissolution of the said partnership.\nThe only question is: \u201cCan the plaintiffs recover, they having had no actual notice of tire dissolution of the partnership or of the formation of the corporation? We think they can. In such cases, actual notice must be given, especially to those \u25a0who had previous dealings with the partnership.\nThe case is governed by Eliason v. Sexton, 105 N. C., 356, and Alexander v. Harkins, 120 N. C., 452.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eaikcloth, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. N. A. Sinclair, for appellant.",
      "Mr. S. II. MacRae, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BYNUM & PASCHAL, v. JOHN F. CLARK and W. D. CLARK, Partners.\n(Decided December 5, 1899.)\nPartnership \u2014 Notice of Dissolution.\nActual notice of dissolution of partnership must be given, especially to those who had previous dealings with the firm.\nOrviL ActtoN upon a running account, submitted on appeal from Justice's Court of Cumbeklastd County, to Robinson, J., at May Term, 1899, of the Superior Court, and judgment rendered by him in favor of plaintiff under circumstances stated in the opinion. Defendants excepted and appealed.\nMr. N. A. Sinclair, for appellant.\nMr. S. II. MacRae, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0352-01",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 385
}