Legal Opinion

Heirs of Pugh v. Currie

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1843PublishedCited by 7 opinions

EituoR to the Chancery court of Barbour. The bill was filed by the defendants in error, and charges that a partnership existed between themselves and James Pugh, deceased, in the mercantile business, under the firm of James Pugh & Co. — that the business was unprofitable, and the firm largely in debt; that for the purpose of acquiring means to pay off qncf satisfy said debt, the defendant, Pugh, without their knowledge, but with the money of the firm, and intended for its…

Read the full summary

EituoR to the Chancery court of Barbour. The bill was filed by the defendants in error, and charges that a partnership existed between themselves and James Pugh, deceased, in the mercantile business, under the firm of James Pugh & Co. — that the business was unprofitable, and the firm largely in debt; that for the purpose of acquiring means to pay off qncf satisfy said debt, the defendant, Pugh, without their knowledge, but with the money of the firm, and intended for its benefit, entered at the land office in his own name, nine tracts of land, which are described, and in the purchase vested…

1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.

Real estate held by a partnership for part-. nership purposes, is as between the partners themselves and their creditors, considered and held as mere personalty; but whether it is to be so treated upon the death of one of the partners, and the right to vest in the surviving partner, or whether to give it that effect there must not be an agreement between the-partners, by which the land is to be considered as stock, and thus be converted into personalty, appears to be considered a doubtful question at this day in England. [See Thornton v. Dixon, 3 Bro. C. C. 199, where the latter was held to…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hatchett v. BlantonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
  2. McKleroy v. MusgroveSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
  3. Lang's Heirs v. WaringSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
  4. Little v. SnedecorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  5. Rovelsky v. Brown & SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API