Short answer. Yes, if the requirements of Rule 130, Section 30 are met. A partner's or agent's statement, made within the scope of authority and during the partnership or agency, may be admitted against the other party — but only after the partnership or agency itself is proven by evidence separate from that very statement.
What the law says
The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject or within the scope of his or her authority
Rule 130, Section 30 — Admission by co. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.
Rule 130, Section 30 — Admission by co. Read the full provision →
What the rule actually allows in
Section 30 lets in the act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject or within the scope of his or her authority, made during the existence of the partnership or agency. In plain terms: if your business partner had authority to speak on the matter, and said something about it while the partnership was still ongoing, that statement can be offered in evidence against you even though you personally never said it.
The proof-first condition that limits it
The rule does not let a party bootstrap a partnership's existence out of the very statement being offered. The partnership or agency itself must first be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. That means whoever wants to use your partner's statement against you must first independently establish, through other proof, that a real partnership existed and that your partner was acting within it — the statement cannot be its own foundation.
Who else this reaches beyond partners and agents
The same treatment extends to a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. So the rule is not limited narrowly to formal partnerships and agencies — anyone who shares an interest jointly with a party, in the way a co-owner or co-debtor does, can likewise make a statement that becomes usable evidence against the others sharing that interest, once the joint relationship is independently proven.
Why the scope-of-authority limit matters
A partner's offhand remark about something entirely outside the partnership's business, or outside what that partner was authorized to speak on, does not automatically bind the other partners under this rule. The statement has to concern the subject matter of the authority, and be made while the relationship still existed — a former partner's statement made after the partnership ended, or a statement on a matter the partner had no authority over, sits outside what Section 30 lets in against you.
Related provisions
- Rule 130, Section 30 — Admission by co
- Rule 130, Section 29 — Admission by third party
- Rule 130, Section 31 — Admission by conspirator