Hamersley v. Lambert
New York Court of Chancery
JOHN BEDIENT and Walter Hubbell were partners in trade, prior to 1803. The partnership was dissolved, by the death of Hubbell, in September, 1803. At his death, the firm was indebted to Thomas Holm.es, of Bristol, in England, who died in 1808; and, on his estate, letters of administration were granted, in this state, to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
JOHN BEDIENT and Walter Hubbell were partners in trade, prior to 1803. The partnership was dissolved, by the death of Hubbell, in September, 1803. At his death, the firm was indebted to Thomas Holm.es, of Bristol, in England, who died in 1808; and, on his estate, letters of administration were granted, in this state, to the plaintiff. Moneys were paid to Holmes, on account, in 1806, by Bedient, the surviving partner; and on the 1st of January, 1807, a balance of 3,393 dollars, 32 cents was admitted, by Bedient, to be due. In October, 1807, Bedient was discharged under the insolvent act of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
[ * 510 ]
*510[ *511 ]
*509All the objections must be overruled. The plaintiff is entitled to receive the debt out of the assets of the deceased partner. The demand was sufficiently admitted ; and interest was to be cast on the balance liquidated and acknowledged on the 1st of January, 1807. It is well settled, that relief may be had in equity against the representatives of a deceased partner leaving assets, if the surviving partner be insolvent. This was the principle declared by Lord Hardwicke, in the case of Simpson v. Vaughan, cited in 2 Vesey, 101.; and the point was established in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Reimsdyk v. KaneU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1812
3Cited by2 opinions
- Irby v. GrahamMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- Goldsborough v. RinggoldHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1848