Mc Cord-Brady Co. v. Mills
Wyoming Supreme Court
On reserved questions from the District Court, Sheridan County, Hon. Joseph L. Stotts, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. By the great weight of authority, a partnership assignment, where the statute requires participating creditors to execute releases of the assignor, is void unless the separate property of the members of the firm is included in the assignment.
Read the full summary
On reserved questions from the District Court, Sheridan County, Hon. Joseph L. Stotts, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. By the great weight of authority, a partnership assignment, where the statute requires participating creditors to execute releases of the assignor, is void unless the separate property of the members of the firm is included in the assignment. (Hutzler v. Phillips (S. C.), 1 S. E., 508; '3 Md., 11; 8 Md., 418; 11 Id., 376; 14 Id., 24; 16 Id., 101; May v. Walker, 28 H. W., 252; Thompson v. Winona, etc.; 43 Id., 383; In re Allen, 41 Minn., 430; 47 Md., 545;…
1Opinion of the Court
PotteR, Chief Justice.
The questions reserved by the district, court for our decision arise in certain garnishment proceedings, upon a motion of the garnishee and the defendants for the discharge of the garnishee. Quoting from the. record the motion is as follows: liOn behalf of the garnishee and assignee of S. E. Mills & Co., as well as on behalf of S. E. Mills & Co., defendants in the original action, move the court that the garnishee be discharged in this proceeding, his answer disclosing that he has no property belonging to the individual members of the firm of S. E. Mills & Co., who are…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Drucker & Brother v. Wellhouse & SonsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
- Donoho v. Fish Bros. & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1882
- May v. WalkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Hennessy v. Western BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Long v. Meriden Britannia Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1897
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Wolf Furniture House, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1987
- Feiner's Organization, Inc. v. CaffinaSupreme Court of Florida · 1955
- Schiffer v. United Grocers, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1999