Treadwell v. Sackett
New York Supreme Court
THE only question in this case was whether all the members of a partnership firm, executing an assignment of property in trust for the benefit of creditors, were previously known to the officer who took their acknowledgment; it not being claimed that he took any proof of their identity.
1Opinion of the CourtClerke, J.
As it is necessary that every partner should unite in the execution of an assignment in trust, except when some of the partners abscond and give authority, express or implied, to those remaining to execute such an instrument, (Welles et al. v. March et al. 30 N. Y. Rep. 344,) it is equally necessary that when all execute it, the acknowledgement which the statute requires, should also be made by all. I have already decided in Jones et al. v. Bach et al. (48 Barb. 568,) that' an acknowledgement made before an officer who "had no previous knowledge of the parties and who received no more…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Welles v. . MarchNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Jones v. BachNew York Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by3 opinions
- Holbrook v. OrglerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1875
- Smith v. BoydNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1884
- Smith v. TimNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1884