Darrow v. Bruff
New York Court of Common Pleas
The plaintiff as a receiver, appointed in supplementary-proceedings, filed a bill to set aside the general assignment of a special partnership, upon the single ground that it was not executed and acknowledged by all of the general partners in person, before delivery to the assignee. One of the partners resided in New York, and the- other two in New Orleans. The remaining facts are sufficiently stated In the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
The instrument in question was the general assignment of a special or limited partnership. It was acknowledged by the resident partner in person, for himself, for the firm, and as the attorney, in fact, of the non-resident partners, who promptly ratified his acts. It is, therefore, distinguishable from Adams agt. Houghton (3 Abb. N. S. 46), which was a case of an assignment by resident debtors exclusively. That case went far enough, and I entirely con-concur in Judge Brady’s intimation that non-resident members of a firm are not necessarily included in the statutory *480requirement of a personal…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lowenstein v. FlauraudNew York Supreme Court · 1877
- Lowenstein v. FlauraudNew York Supreme Court · 1877