McLaughlin v. Mulloy
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the Third district court, Summit county. Hon. M. L. Ritchie, Judge. Action by David C. McLaughlin, receiver of the Park City Bank, against Thomas F. Mulloy. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. The partner who signed the firm name without authority is himself bound, the same as if he had signed his own name.” Bates on Partnership, sec. 349, and cases cited; Hendrie v. Berlcowitz, 37 Cal. 113, cited in 3 Dill. 51; Dow-lings.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Third district court, Summit county. Hon. M. L. Ritchie, Judge. Action by David C. McLaughlin, receiver of the Park City Bank, against Thomas F. Mulloy. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. The partner who signed the firm name without authority is himself bound, the same as if he had signed his own name.” Bates on Partnership, sec. 349, and cases cited; Hendrie v. Berlcowitz, 37 Cal. 113, cited in 3 Dill. 51; Dow-lings. Bank, 145 U. S. 512; Olive y. Morgan, (Tex.) 28 S. W. Rep. 572; Van Dyke y. Seelye, (Minn.) 52 N. W. Rep. 215; see note 31 Am. State Rep. “by…
1Opinion of the CourtBaetch, J.
(after stating the facts):
It seems to be conceded on both sides that this action is in the nature of a suit in equity, to determine the plaintiff’s right to money in the hands of the defendant, and is controlled by the principles governing the distribution of partnership funds in case of insolvency. Nor is there any dispute that, when a co-partnership becomes insolvent, its creditors have a preference, in the payment of their claims, over creditors of individual members, and that, in case of insolvency, the creditors of individuals have preference over claims against the co-partnership.
The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re Assignment of GilbertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- In re HamiltonDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1880
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mitchell v. City Nat. Bank of Wichita FallsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929