Filley v. Phelps
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill in chancery, which was referred to a committee ; and the material facts found by them, and embraced in their report, are the following.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery, which was referred to a committee ; and the material facts found by them, and embraced in their report, are the following. Elihu Phelps, William P. Fay and Ansel D. Phelps, on the 1st day of June, 1842, entered into partnership, in the business of keeping a livery stable, in the city of Hartford; and as such partners, purchased of James Goodwin, horses, carriages and other property, necessary for conducting their business, amounting to the sum of 8,200 dollars ; for which they gave him their four joint and several promissory notes, one for the sum of 2,200…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
The question in this case, is, in what manner the partnership funds of E. Phelps and Fay, are to be divided among the several claimants.
No rule in the law of partnership is more firmly established, and can be sustained by a greater array of authorities, than that partnership debts are to be paid out of partnership funds, in preference to debts against any individual member of the company. Witter v. Richards, 10 Conn. R. 37. Barber v. Hartford Bank, 9 Conn. R. 410. Brewster v. Hammet & al. 4 Conn. R. 340. United States v. Hack & al. 8 Pet. R. 275.
The interest of one partner in the partnership…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Egberts v. WoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Ward v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Deveau v. FowlerNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3Cited by15 opinions
- Maruca v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Silberman v. BlodgettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Van Riper v. PoppenhausenNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Wilson v. MeyerUtah Supreme Court · 1901
- Thayer v. HumphreyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.