Conroy v. Woods
San Fransisco District Court
The material facts are referred to in the opinion. First. The sale from Brooks and Moore to Bell, dissolved the partnership, but left the property as before, subject to the partnership debts.
Read the full summary
The material facts are referred to in the opinion. First. The sale from Brooks and Moore to Bell, dissolved the partnership, but left the property as before, subject to the partnership debts. Tbe purchaser received only the interest of the vendors in the surplus after the partnership accounts should have been settled ; and as Bonney had a lien upon the assets for the purpose of their application to the partnership debts, Bell could do nothing inconsistent with the primary duty of winding up the affairs of the partnership. Kent’s Comm,., 59, 60, 63 ; /Story on Part., §§ 307, 308, 261 and note;…
1Opinion of the Court
Nortoít, J.
— The proofs taken in this action sustain the material allegations of the complaint, and the final decree must be governed by the principles announced in deciding the motion to dissolve the injunction and the demurrer to the complaint. The sale of Brooks and Moore to Bell, was of their interest in the copartnership property of the firm of Bonney, Brooks ‡ Moore, subject however, to all its, the said firm’s legal liabilities. This same interest was then transferred to JE. B. Bonney, in whose hands the property in question was attached by the contesting parties in this suit. It is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sedam v. WilliamsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan · 1845
- Greenwood v. BrodheadNew York Supreme Court · 1850