Waples-Platter Co. v. Mitchell

Decided February 1, 1896

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1896-02-01

1. Partnership Creditor’s Lien and Right to Receivership. A simple partnership creditor has no specific lien, either legal or equitable, on the partnership property, entitling him to have the firm estate administered through a receiver. 2. Same — Fraudulent Sale by One Partner. Nor will the fact that one member of an insolvent firm has sold his interest to a third person, with intent to defraud the firm creditors, authorize the appointment of a receiver upon the petition of a creditor having no specific lien. 3. Same — Consent of Parties. Nor, in such case, can the appointment of a receiver be made on the ground that the remaining partner, having, as partner, an equitable lien on the firm assets for the payment of the firm debts, consented to the proceeding instituted by the creditor, where such remaining partner assented to such sale by his co-partner, formed a new partnership with the purchaser and took possession of the goods of the former firm.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-02-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 1976

21 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The appellant has filed a motion asking this court to file "specific findings of fact and law" in this cause. Our opinion heretofore filed embraces our conclusions of the law of the case, and we deem further expressions as to the law unnecessary.

¶2There is nothing in the record upon which we can base conclusions of fact. There is no statement of facts nor findings by the court, further than the finding "that the defendants E.W. Mitchell and R.L. Anderson were indebted to plaintiff in the amount claimed by it at the time the suit was filed." This much is recited in the judgment.

¶3The motion is overruled. Overruled.

¶4Writ of error refused. *95