Smith v. Jackson
New York Court of Chancery
This case involved a question as to the effect of a purchase of real estate by copartners. Alexander C. Jackson and Robert Me. Jimsey had been copartners in trade, under the firm of Jackson & Me. Jim-While they were such partners, they purchased a ^arSe amount of real estate with the funds of the co-partnership; and they both joined in mortgaging the same property.
Read the full summary
This case involved a question as to the effect of a purchase of real estate by copartners. Alexander C. Jackson and Robert Me. Jimsey had been copartners in trade, under the firm of Jackson & Me. Jim-While they were such partners, they purchased a ^arSe amount of real estate with the funds of the co-partnership; and they both joined in mortgaging the same property. One of their purchases of such real estate consisted of thirty-seven lots of land and they debited the amount of purchase to “ Merchandize account.” All this real estate had been since sold, under decrees of foreclosure, arising…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice Chancellor:
Messrs. Jackson and Me, Jimsey held several parcels of land, under the conveyances to them, in their joint names, as tenants in common, and prima facie, in equal moieties. Yet, although the purchases were made out of their joint funds, and, even supposing the1 same to have been intended as partnership transactions or for partnership purposes, it is a well established rule that there is no right of survivorship in the lands, but, upon the death of one partner intestate, his share descendido his heir at law.
There are instances, however, of lands, held for partnership…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Buchan v. SumnerNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
- Duryea v. BurtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Washburn v. Bank of Bellows FallsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Hollister v. LoudMichigan Supreme Court · 1852
- Lowe v. LoweCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1878
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.