Holland v. Drake
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county. Reserved in the district court. Tracy and McKay were partners in the “ grain and feed business,” in the city of Cleveland, Tracy being the active and managing member.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county. Reserved in the district court. Tracy and McKay were partners in the “ grain and feed business,” in the city of Cleveland, Tracy being the active and managing member. On the 13th of December, 186*7, the firm then being insolvent, McKay caused a notice of the dissolution of the partnership to be published in the city papers; and afterward, on the 20th of the same month, he executed to J. M. Drake, and filed in the probate court, a general assignment of the property and effects of the company, for the benefit of all its creditors. On the last named…
1Opinion of the CourtWelch, C. J.
The important question in the case is, whether one member of an insolvent firm, either before or after dissolution of the partnership,-can make a valid assignment of all its effects for the benefit of creditors against the will of a copartner, or without procuring his assent when present or accessible. Until this question is decided in the negative, it is unnecessary to consider thequestions whether this firm was dissolved by the published notice, and if so, whether such dissolution had the effect to lessen or take away the power to assign. The important question is, diyl the power ever exist…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Wilcox v. JacksonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1884
- In re Farmers' Supply Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1909
- American Surety Co. v. BallmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
- Coleman v. DarlingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- State National Bank v. Union National BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.