—I am compelled to dissent from the opinion of

my brethren in this case, for the reason that I do not think that the defendants can fairly be considered as having admitted any indebtedness due from them to the plaintiff. The record shows that Gorham, a former partner of Burritt, the plaintiff, had, at various times, borrowed money from the defendants, and I think that the letter of the defendants in reply to that of the plaintiff, does not admit the correctness of the particular items of the plaintiff’s account, but was written under the supposition that Gorham was authorized to receive the amount due the firm, and that any payment made to him might be legally offset against the account which the plaintiff had against either the old. or new firm. Under these circumstances, I do not think that the defendants can be fairly said to have admitted the correctness of the plaintiff's account, and they ought not to be charged with the same.

A rehearing having been granted, Burnett, J., at this term, delivered the opinion of the. Court—Murray, C. J., concurring.

This case was decided at the last April Term of this Court, and the judgment of the Court below affirmed. In that opinion we say: “ But it is not shown that the plaintiff knew anything of the terms upon which the new firm was formed.”

In the petition of defendants for a rehearing, our attention has been called to a portion of the record which shows that we were in error in reference to this matter of fact.

In January, 1854, a bill of items was made out by Mr. Gorham, in the name of the firm of B. and G., consisting of some fourteen particulars, and furnished by him to the defendants. In that account, there is a charge of fifty dollars against the firm of Dickson, De Wolf & Co., for drawing articles of copartnership. The whole amount of this account was five hundred and seventy-five dollars, and at the close of the account transmitted by the plaintiff to defendants, in his letter of December 4th, .1854, they are charged with, “amount of bill rendered by A. Gorham against Dickson, De Wolf & Co., five hundred and seventy-five dollars.

, Before the trial, the plaintiff furnished to defendants’ counsel a *117 bill of particulars, which, by stipulation, is made a part of the record. In this bill of particulars there is a copy of the bill of five hundred and seventy-five dollars, furnished by Mr. Gorham, and the whole bill is designated as “ the first item ” in the report of the referee, which rejects this bill as not established by proof. There being no question made as to this bill, and no allusion made in the briefs of either party on appeal, to the fact that the articles of copartnership of the new firm of Dickson, De Wolf& Co., were drawn up by the firm of Burritt & Gorham, the separate items of this “ first item ” were not examined by us, and in this way this most material matter was entirely overlooked. These facts, taken in connection with the fact that the articles of copartnership were introduced on the trial before the referee, by the plaintiff, show that he did know the terms upon which the new firm was formed. And from the articles of copartnership, it is at once seen that the new firm did not take upon them the former liabilities of H. W. Dickson.

This knowledge on the part of the plaintiff, as to the terms of the partnership of defendants, entirely changes the aspect of the case. The plaintiff, under such circumstances, had no just right to suppose the new firm liable, and it was very natural on the part of defendants, knowing that the firm of B. & G. had drawn the copartnership articles, and that plaintiff knew the fact from the account furnished by himself on the fourth of December, that they should not give the information already in the possession of plaintiff. Before a party can urge an estoppel against another, he must be misled by the conduct of the party, in a case where he is ignorant of facts known to the party against whom the estoppel is alleged. If he knows the facts himself, or has the means of knowing them within his own control, he has no right to throw the labor of communicating them upon others.

In this case, it is very probable that the copartnership articles were drawn up by Mr. Gorham, and that the plaintiff, in making out the account on the fourth of December, did not examine the items of the bill previously furnished by his deceased partner. But this circumstance could not justify the plaintiff. Notice to his partner was notice to him.

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court below should be reversed, and a new trial granted.