Portland Bank v. Hyde
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The facts in this case are clearly stated in the opinion of the Court. contended that the claim of William. Hyde should be rejected, on the ground that he, being a partner, had no right to draw upon the company fund to satisfy his own claim until after the partnership debts were paid, and cited the following authorities: 1 Chitty’s Dig. of Chan.
Read the full summary
The facts in this case are clearly stated in the opinion of the Court. contended that the claim of William. Hyde should be rejected, on the ground that he, being a partner, had no right to draw upon the company fund to satisfy his own claim until after the partnership debts were paid, and cited the following authorities: 1 Chitty’s Dig. of Chan. Rep. 113; Ex parte Ellis, 2 Glyn &f Jameson, 312; Ex parte Sillitoe, 1 Glyn £/• Jameson, 312; Ex parte Taylor, 2 Rose Rep. 734; 3 Kent’s Com. 115. His assignees stand on no better ground than Hyde himself. Fox v. Hambray, Cowp. 449. insisted that,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered at a term held in August following, by adjournment from April, by
Paubis J.
The persons attempted to be charged as trustees in this case, are the assignees of Gershom llyde fy Company, a firm composed of Gershom Hyde and William Hyde. The assignees claim to hold the property for the purpose of paying such creditors of Gershom Hyde 8f Company, as had become parties to the indenture, previous to the Service of the writ in this case on the trustees ; and among others, of paying a debt alleged to be due from the firm of Gershom Hyde &/■ Company to William…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lyndon v. GorhamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1812
- Griffith v. ChewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by2 opinions
- Davis v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Walker v. WalkerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1883