#### G. W. CHIPLEY & W. B. JONES, surviving partners v. SILAS KEATON et al.

If a partner purchases property with the partnership effects, and sells said property to, a Iona fide purchaser without notice, the other partners cannot follow the property in the hands of such purchaser.

Assumpsit, tried before Mitchell, J., at Spring Term, 1871, i>f Iredell ^Superior Court,

'fhe facts of this case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.

Bailey and Blachmer & McCorhle, for plaintiffs.

W. jP. Caldwell, for defendants.

Rodman, J.

The plaintiffs, and; on,e} Tays were partners; it is, not said that trading in slaves was a part of the partnership business.; Tays purchased the slaves to recover damages, for whpse conversion this action is brought, and paid for them partially with his, own money, but mostly with that of the partnership; he toQk”th.e bill of sale to. himself alone, and, kept possession of the slaves for several years when, he sold them to the defendants, who converted them. Jon.es: was, with Tays when he purchased the slaye.s, and took, the title t,o-himself, and made po, objection, to. hi?, d.oiijg; so. We, see.no error in the charge, of the. Judge, If a, partner without, the consent or knowledge of his, co-partners., misappropriate? the funds and *535invests them in property in his own name, he is of course liable to his partners. But if he afterwards sells the property to a bona fide purchaser without notice, the other partners cannot follow the property in the hands of such purchaser. Much less can they do this, when they acquiesced in the sole possession of the third partner for two or three years.

This conclusion rests on principles so plainjand familiar that we consider it unnecessary to refer to any authorities in support of it.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.