Charleson v. McGraw
Washington Territory
Error to "the District Court holding terms at Seattle. Third District. Plaintiffs being partners in the logging business, each having a family, and' all depending wholly for support upon said business, jointly owned as such copartners certain oxen used in said business of the value of $750, and were not owners of any of the domestic animals mentioned in subdivision 4, section 347 of the Code, and therefore claimed the right to select, under said section, of the above named…
Read the full summary
Error to "the District Court holding terms at Seattle. Third District. Plaintiffs being partners in the logging business, each having a family, and' all depending wholly for support upon said business, jointly owned as such copartners certain oxen used in said business of the value of $750, and were not owners of any of the domestic animals mentioned in subdivision 4, section 347 of the Code, and therefore claimed the right to select, under said section, of the above named property not to exceed the value of $150 for each partner as being exempt from execution. The defendant being sheriff,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Langford
The transcript in this case shows that the appellants were copartners, and that a levy of execution was made upon their partnership property. It is admitted that the .execution creditors were creditors of the partners. The appellants claim the property so levied upon as exempt from the execution. The legality of this claim is the only question before us. Each partner, by force of the relation between them, has a lien upon all the assets of the firm to pay the balance due him upon settlement, and to pay firm debts. As against this-lien no exemption can prevail. The firm creditors may take…
2Cited by3 opinions
- In re CrookDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1915
- Dennis v. Kass & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1895
- In re ScheierDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1911