Emanuel v. Bird
Supreme Court of Alabama
EnaoR to the Court of Probato of Mobile. The plaintiff in error filed a claim against the estate of Tho. iCasey, deceased, which had been declared insolvent. The claim ■was a partnership debt against tho firm of .¡Greene, Casey &. James, of which Thomas Casey was proved to be a member. It was also proved that Greene and James, tho other partners, were insolvent.
Read the full summary
EnaoR to the Court of Probato of Mobile. The plaintiff in error filed a claim against the estate of Tho. iCasey, deceased, which had been declared insolvent. The claim ■was a partnership debt against tho firm of .¡Greene, Casey &. James, of which Thomas Casey was proved to be a member. It was also proved that Greene and James, tho other partners, were insolvent. The Court of Probate decreed “ that said claim be allowed in the event that the assets of said estate shall be .deemed sufficient to pay ip full tho individual liabilities of said ..decedent, and not otherwise.” 1. A debt due from a…
1Opinion of the CourtDargan, C. J.
At common law when a partnership wás dissolved hy the death of one of its members, the creditors of the firm had no remedy against the representatives of the deceased partner, but were compelled to look to the survivors alone for the payment of their debts; and it seems that at one period the same rule prevailed in equity, and that the joint creditors, neither at law nor in -equity, had any remedy against the separate estate of the deceased partner. — Story on Part., § 862. But it is now the well settled doctrine, that in equity all partnership debts arc to Ibe considered joint and several,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Hess v. LowreyIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Mayer v. ClarkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1866
- R. W. Smith & Co. v. Mallory's Ex'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
- Warren v. TaylorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- R. L. McDonald & Co. v. Cash & HaindsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.