36 FEDERAL REPORTER.
Bank ofthe Republic v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152; First Nat. Bank v.
Whitman, 94 U. S. 343. '
A check is but an order on a depositary, directing him to pay a
certain sum to the payee or bearer. The drawer can intercept its
payment at any time before actual payment or acceptance by the
drawee. It does not furnish tothe payee a fund which is subject to
his exclusive control. It may be regarded by mercantile usage as
equivalent to a cash payment; it may be convertible immediately
1nto money; but its delivery to the general partners is not the pay-
ment in actual cash which is contemplated by the statute. No bet-
ter illustration of the danger that would attend such a loose con-
struction of the statute as would permit the terms “actual cash pay-
ment" to be fulfilled by the delivery of a check, payable at sight to
the general partners, could be suggested than is shown by the facts
of this case. Although the affidavit filed with the certificate stated
that the contribution of the special partner had been actually and in
good faith paid in cash, the money was not realized until a month
subsequent to the filing of the affidavit. There may not have been
any intentional bad faith in the transaction; but if it should be per-
mitted to stand the purpose of the statute would be wholly frus-
trated.
Judgment is ordered for the plaintiff.
NOTE.
Statutory provisions respecting the formation of "limited partnershi s" must be
strictly pursued; and, where the statute requires the contribution of the "special"
partner to be in cash, he cannot make it partly in cash and partly in goods, credits, or
assets of another firm. Lineweaver v. Slagle, (Md.) 2 Atl. Rep. 693. The court in this
case say that the contribution in government bonds or any other class of commercial
securities, no matter how valuable they may be, or how easily convertible into money,
cannot be accepted as a substitute for the " actual cash payments" which the statute
requires; citing Haviland v. Chace, 39 Barb. 283; Pierce v. Bryant, 5 Allen, 91; Hag-
gerty v. Foster, 103 Mass. 17; Richardson v. Hogg, 38 Pa. St. 153; In re Merrill, 12
Blatchf. 221; Van Ingen v. Whitman, 62 N. Y. 513.
Where, in the attempt to form a limited (partnership, the special pxartner fails to con-
tribute the cash capital as agreed upon, an as required by statute, e is liable as gen-
eral partner. Sharp v, Hutchinson, (N. Y.) 3 N. E. Rep. 600. See, also, Lineweaver v.
Slagle, (Md.) 2 Atl. Rep. 693.
Monem and others v. Cox and others.
(Oircuit Oaurl, WZ D. Texas. 1886.)
_'. EVIDENCE—RECORD or- DEED—ACKNOWIiEDGMENT—NOTARIAL SEAL.
The record of a deed that recites that the notary public who took the ac
knowledgment had no proper seal, and used a private seal, is admissible in
evidence in Texas.
2. SAMn——D1¤:mD Orrnnnn rn Evrnmnonron Om: Puarosu IN Evrnnnon Fon Am
Punrosns. _ _ _
Where plaintiif offers a deed on which his opponent relies as evidence of h1s
title, in evidence, for the purpose of showing that such deed is a forgery, ii
the evidence fails to show that it is a forgery, it is in evidence for all pur —
poses for which it could be used. and defendant may take advantage of it.
At Law.