Hutchinson v. Smith
New York Court of Chancery
The facts in this case are so fully stated in the opinion of the chancellor, that it is deemed unnecesary to repeat them here. The following opinion was delivered by the vice chancellor upon making the' decree appealed from: Gardner, Y. C. The first question in this case is, whether Phelps as surviving partner had the right to transfer all the partnership property to assignees for' any purpose.
Read the full summary
The facts in this case are so fully stated in the opinion of the chancellor, that it is deemed unnecesary to repeat them here. The following opinion was delivered by the vice chancellor upon making the' decree appealed from: Gardner, Y. C. The first question in this case is, whether Phelps as surviving partner had the right to transfer all the partnership property to assignees for' any purpose. As a copartner, he had the right to buy and sell, pay and receive, and to bind the firm by his contracts." (16 John. Rep. 491.) He possessed the power, under certain circumstances, to make a valid…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This is an appeal from a decree of thé vice chancellor of the eighth" circuit, dismissing the complainants’ bill with costs as to the defendants, who appeared and answered. The facts upon which the rights of the parties depend are, for the -most part, undisputed. It appears that Samuel M. Smith of Rochester purchased a stock of goods, and commenced the business of merchandise on the first of January, 1827; at which time, and down to the time of his death, he was the treasurer of Monroe *32county. That in the spring of the same year, he made a con-about the first of August in the…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Williams v. . WhedonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Penn v. FoglerIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Mabbett v. . WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Goldsmith v. Eichold Bros. & WeissSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- Espy v. ComerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.