In re Chipman
New York Supreme Court
THIS was a motion for a mandamus to the recorder of the . , r 7 ,. . , . . city and county oí Js cw-Yorlc. directing him to issue a warrant ° . sentandabssond-oi attachment^ in pursuance of the act for giving relief against * o o o absconding and absent debtors.
Read the full summary
THIS was a motion for a mandamus to the recorder of the . , r 7 ,. . , . . city and county oí Js cw-Yorlc. directing him to issue a warrant ° . sentandabssond-oi attachment^ in pursuance of the act for giving relief against * o o o absconding and absent debtors. It appeared, that the usual proofs of the demand of the creditors, and of the absconding of the debtor, had been presented to the recorder, but that he had to issue the warrant, on the ground, that the demand was against Chipman and others, as copartners, and that two of the firm, of which Chipman was a member, remained within the…
1Opinion of the Court
Griffin,
in behalf of the application, contended, that the act was to be beneficially expounded in favour of creditors ; that in case of a demand against a copartnership, each partner is to be considered a debtor for the whole amount, and that his person and property are liable therefor accordingly. That the statute in question authorizes the creditors to attach the property of any absconding or absent debtor, without limitation, and that the circumstance that such debtor has partners resident in this-state, can make no difference, especially, where such partners are insolvent. That, to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gomez v. VazquezCity of New York Municipal Court · 1941
- Jaffray v. JenningsMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Searcy v. Platte CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1847