Moore v. Pennell
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On facts agreed. George D. Hillman and A. H. Phinney, two of the plaintiffs, were formerly partners, doing business in the stove business.in the name of George D. Phinney & Co. They were also partners in the millinery business, using the firm name of Asa H. Phinney & Co. On Oct. 19, 1860, Asa II.
Read the full summary
On facts agreed. George D. Hillman and A. H. Phinney, two of the plaintiffs, were formerly partners, doing business in the stove business.in the name of George D. Phinney & Co. They were also partners in the millinery business, using the firm name of Asa H. Phinney & Co. On Oct. 19, 1860, Asa II. Phinney & Co., dissolved their co-partnership, and formed a new one with Jonathan Moore, one of the plaintiffs, under the name of Moore, Phinney & Co., the said Moore having purchased on that day on,e-half part, in common, of the stock of Asa H. Phinney & Co. On Oct. 29, 1860, one J. W. Orvis sued…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn by
Walton, J.
The share of one of several co-partners in the goods of the firm may be attached and sold on execution for his individual debt; and, as incidental to this right, the officer may take possession of the goods seized, and deliver the whole to the purchaser. But, if he sells the entire property in the goods, it is such an abuse of his legal authority as will make him liable as a trespasser ab initio ; and an action may be maintained against him in the name of all the members of the firm.
With respect to such members of the firm as are not parties to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Worsham v. LigonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Hershfield v. Horace B. Claflin & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Ferguson v. DayIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- R. A. Myles & Co. v. A. D. Davis Packing Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1919