the  case  of  Marti/ii  v,  Grai/  (q),  where  A.  introduced
B.  to  C.  as  the  moneyed  partner  ;  B.  was  not  a  part-
ner, but  he  stood  by,  and  did  not  deny  the  statement,
and  he  was  held  answerable  for  a  loss  incurred.  It  is
sometimes  rather  harsh,  but  as  Eyre,  C.  J.,  said  in
W((U(jh  V.  Carver  {r),  it  is  necessary  "  upon  principles
of  general  policy,  to  prevent  frauds  to  which  creditors
would  be  liable."  But  representations  of  this  kind
cannot  be  used  against  a  man  unless  his  conduct
causes  others  to  alter  their  condition  on  the  faitli  of
them  [s).
This  principle  extends  to  administrations  in  bank-
ruptcy, but  the  executors  of  a  deceased  partner  are
not  bound  by  the  mere  use  of  the  old  partnership
name  by  the  survivors  {t).
LiahiUty  for  Wro)t(jH. — This  rests  on  a  somewhat
different  footing,  for  only  those  who  are  actual
members  of  the  firm,  are  held  liable  to  the  conse-
quences of  these ;  and  it  is  not  involved  by  mere
holding  out  (»).  Even  true  partners  are  not  answer-
able for  all  wrongs  of  then*  fellows,  but  only  (i)  if
the  wrongful  act  is  within  the  scope  of  the  business
and  of  the  defaulter's  authority ;  or  (ii)  if  the  tort  is
misapplication  of  money,  &e.,  and  then  the  money,
the  subject  of  such  misapplication,  must  have  been
received  for  or  applied  to  the  benefit  of  the  firm  ;  or
(iii)  if  the  tort  is  breach  of  trust,  and  the  partners,


{q)  14  C.  B.  N.  S.  824.
(?)  2  H.  BL  235.
[s)   Quarman  v.  Burnett,  6  M.  &  W.  508.
{t)  On  the  general  subject,  see  Lindley,  pp.  45,  46.
(«)  There  is  a  case  to  tlie  contrary  effect.     But  see  Pollock,
p.  29.
