Newman v. Bean
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a quantity of writing paper and other articles, alleged to have been converted on the 30th November, 1847. The taking and conversion of the property by the defendant, as also the partnership of the plaintiffs, were admitted; and also that the defendant was a deputy of the sheriff of this county, and took the goods, on a valid execution against the firm of Roby, Kimball & Merrill; of which firm Rufus Merrill had been a partner.
Read the full summary
Trover, for a quantity of writing paper and other articles, alleged to have been converted on the 30th November, 1847. The taking and conversion of the property by the defendant, as also the partnership of the plaintiffs, were admitted; and also that the defendant was a deputy of the sheriff of this county, and took the goods, on a valid execution against the firm of Roby, Kimball & Merrill; of which firm Rufus Merrill had been a partner. The plaintiffs introduced a written contract between Mark B. Newman and said Merrill, without date, but proved to have been made in February, 1846, as…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, C. J.
It is unnecessary to settle the question whether the plaintiffs were partners with Merrill or not. However that may be, the action may be maintained. It appears, from the case of Morrison v. Blodgett, 8 N. H. Rep. 245, that an action may be maintained against any third person who should seize goods on execution, belonging to a partnership for the debt of an individual partner, and exclude the other partners from the possession of them. Page v. Carpenter, 10 N. H. Rep. 81. The interest of a partner is not an interest in the specific articles belonging to the firm, but only an interest in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Morrison v. BlodgettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1836
- Page v. CarpenterSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ives v. Manchester Subaru, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1985