Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Ill. App. 489

Fingerhuth v. Lachmann

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 11, 1890

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1890-12-11

<p>Exemptions—Partnership Property—Insolvency.</p> <p>A member of an insolvent firm is not entitled to the exemption provided for by Sec. 13, Chap. 52, R. S., out of partnership assets.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1894

1 state decisions

Relies on Trowbridge v. Cross

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-12-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gary, J.

¶1The appellant and one Heselbarth, doing business as Heselbarth & Fingerhuth, made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors, under which their assets were being administered upon in the County Court. The appellant having a wife and children, with whom he resided, filed a petition that the court would allow him from the partnership property his exemption to the amount allowed to the head of a family under the statute in relation to exemptions. His petition stated that his partner was also entitled to exemptions. On demurrer the court dismissed his petition, and the only question in the case is whether the statutory exemptions can be taken from partnership property. That is a new question in this State, and elsewhere the authorities are conflicting. Down to 1878 they are collected in Thompson on Homestead and Exemptions, of that date.

¶2It is unnecessary to review and weigh those authorities here, as the same reasons for which the Supreme Court, in Trowbridge v. Cross, 117 Ill. 109, denied a homestead to one partner, in real property of a firm, apply with equal force to exclude exemptions from the personal property of a firm.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/37/illapp/489 · .json · Public domain