T. G. Gaylord & Co. v. Imhoff
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
In this cause judgment was recovered, the property of the defendants sold on execution, and the proceeds were in court for distribution. A judgment was made by the judgment debtors, claiming the benefit of the exemption allowed them by law as heads of families and residents of Ohio, setting out that neither of them were the owners of homesteads, or possessed of other property, as provided by the amendment of May 22, 1858, to the “Homestead Law.”
Read the full summary
In this cause judgment was recovered, the property of the defendants sold on execution, and the proceeds were in court for distribution. A judgment was made by the judgment debtors, claiming the benefit of the exemption allowed them by law as heads of families and residents of Ohio, setting out that neither of them were the owners of homesteads, or possessed of other property, as provided by the amendment of May 22, 1858, to the “Homestead Law.” An agreed statement of facts was filed by the counsel for the parties, “ that all the property levied on and sold was partnership property, including…
1Opinion of the CourtStorer, J.
As a general rule, the objection urged to the right of partners to a share of the joint assets before the partnership debts are satisfied is the true one; but the case before us is one where both the partners, who were originally interested in the fund now in court, apply for the exemption allowed by law; neither can be said to sustain the same relation to the other, which would exist, if one were solvent and the other insolvent, for in such case the burden which ought to be borne by both would be imposed upon him alone who had the ability to discharge it.
A copartnership creditor, as such,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stewart v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Radcliff v. WoodNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Bennett v. AppletonNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Ford v. JohnsonNew York Supreme Court · 1861