reported in a New Jersey opinion those cases must be regarded as authority). The courts of all other jurisdictions agree that a partner execute ing a guaranty in the name of the partnership is engaging in a transaction that is uncommon to the business of the partnership and will be binding on the partnership only if that partner has the express authority of the entire partnership to act. See, e.g., In re 9221 Associates v. Industrial State Bank, No.CIV.A.91-0196-CV-W-1, 1991 WL 405172, at *3 (W.D.Mo. Oct. 7, 1991) (“holding that [wjhere the limited partners have not ratified the transaction, a partnership is not bound by a promissory note or mortgage executed by a general partner acting beyond the scope of his authority.”); Luddington v. Bodenvest Ltd., 855 P.2d 204, 207 (Utah 1993) (<HOLDING>); Jamestown Banking Co. v. Conneaut Lake Dock &
holding a mechanic working in a garage owned by a partnership is an employee of the partnership not the individual partner holding one partner can not sic maintain an action at law against another partner to recover an amount claimed by him by reason of partnership transactions until there has been a final settlement of the affairs of the partnership holding that a partner who is without actual authority has no power to bind the partnership in a transaction that is not within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business any person dealing with a partner can only rely on the partners acts if they are within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business holding that a partnership agreement that contained prohibitions against the sale or assignment of a partners interest in the partnership without the others consent would be enforced holding that absent an agreement to the contrary any partner can act as an agent of the partnership when apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership 