Russell's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal from the Common Pleas, No. 2, of Philadelphia County; In Equity; No. 123 Jan. Term, 1884. ■ The bill was filed by creditors of the firm of Morris R. Stroud, & Son, against William Stroud, the surviving partner, and against a creditor, to whom the latter had assigned the firm assets. By amendment the administrator of Morris R. Stroud, the deceased partner was added as a party complainant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Common Pleas, No. 2, of Philadelphia County; In Equity; No. 123 Jan. Term, 1884. ■ The bill was filed by creditors of the firm of Morris R. Stroud, & Son, against William Stroud, the surviving partner, and against a creditor, to whom the latter had assigned the firm assets. By amendment the administrator of Morris R. Stroud, the deceased partner was added as a party complainant. The-bill, set forth, that the firm of Morris R, Stroud & Son, had been composed of Morris R. Stroud and William Stroud.- That Morris R. Stroud had died; that the firm was insolvent, at the time of his…
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Common Pleas, on the 14th of April, in the following opinion:
2Per curiam
The legal title to all the partnership assets rests in á sole surviving partner of the firm. He is entitled to the exclusive possession and control thereof. He may sell and dispose of the whole assets or any part thereof in payment of the debts of the firm. The payment of ouc creditor is no fraud on the other creditors. It is true that the Act of April 17, 1843, P. Laws *365273, prohibits preferences in assignments for the benefit of creditors ; yet it does not prevent a debtor by a…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Bentz v. RockeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
- Wilson v. BergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879