Hulse v. Marshall
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. “ When the law marshalls and distributes the individual and copartnership assets of the different members of a firm, it has respect to the several equities of the creditors of the firm, and of its individual members respectively.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. “ When the law marshalls and distributes the individual and copartnership assets of the different members of a firm, it has respect to the several equities of the creditors of the firm, and of its individual members respectively. In that case, the copartnership assets are to be first applied to the payment of the firm debts, and the individual funds of the several partners to the payment of their separate individual debts.” — Pars, on Part. (3d ed.) 376, [*347] ; 3 Kent’s Comm. (7th ed.) 78 ; Burrill on Assign., sects. 210, 211; O’Neil v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHayden, J.
It is plain that mandamus does not lie here, upon the basis of the plaintiff’s own argument. On that basis, the court has first to settle a doubtful question as to the construction of deeds,' and it is only after this doubt has been resolved in. favor of the appellant that a duty could be established or its performance directed. Thus, mandamus was not the appellant’s appropriate remedy. The State ex rel. v. Garesché, 3 Mo. App. 538.
The complaint is that the respondent, assignee, under the statute, of George H. Loker, refused to pay to the appellant five per cent alleged to be due upon the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Crow v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Henriques v. HoneNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Litchfield v. White & LeonardThe Superior Court of New York City · 1850
- Jewett v. WoodwardNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- State ex rel. Metcalf v. GareschéMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
3Cited by1 opinion
- H. B. Cartwright & Bro. v. United States Bank & Trust Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1917