Seth Grosvenor & Co. v. Administrators of Austin
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a bill in chancery, reserved for decision here in the county of Geauga. The facts, in brief, were these: Seymour Austin and Calvin Austin had transacted business in partnership, as merchants. Both were deceased, and both deceased insolvent. There were no funds of the firm, but Seymour Austin left individual separate property.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery, reserved for decision here in the county of Geauga. The facts, in brief, were these: Seymour Austin and Calvin Austin had transacted business in partnership, as merchants. Both were deceased, and both deceased insolvent. There were no funds of the firm, but Seymour Austin left individual separate property. The complainants, ^creditors of the firm, [104 filed a bill in chancery, against Seymour Austin’s administrator, for a distinct share of his individual effects. The individual and separate creditors of Seymour Austin interposed a claim to be preferred, and first…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Lane
delivered the opinion of the court:
The court have heretofore decided, in this ease, that a bill in chancery may be sustained, at the instance of a creditor, before judgment, to compel the distribution of the estate of a decedent, because it is a trust; and that such a bill may be filed against a deceased partner’s administrator for such a purpose. An account has been taken, and the report of the master shows that there are creditors of Seymour Austin separately, and of Seymour Austin and Calvin Austin jointly; also, that the estate of Calvin Austin is insolvent.
It is now insisted,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hassinger v. SolmsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
3Cited by1 opinion
- R. W. Smith & Co. v. Mallory's Ex'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854