This was an action of assumpsit on a note signed by the principals with their copartnership name.

It appeared by the disclosures of the trasteéis, that the said Lewis Campbell, held a note payable to himself, and signed by the said Bela Chase and G. W. Winchester, as principals, and by the said S. Winchester as a surety ; that on the 1th January, 1829, the said B. Chase and G. W. Winchester, with the assent of Dean, delivered goods belonging to the said copartnership of Dean and company, of the estimated value of $400, to S. Winchester, to be applied to the payment of the said note held by Campbell, as aforesaid. The goods were delivered to Campbell to be sold, and the proceeds applied to the payment of the note, and have been sold for $350, which Campbell claimed to retain in part satisfaction of his note. The firm of Dean and company failed in two or three days after the goods were delivered to S. Winchester, as aforesaid, but Campbell, when lie received the goods, supposed them to be the property of B. Chase and G. W. Winchester.

Partnership property is a fund for the payment of the partnership debts, and is to be first applied to their discharge ; the interest of the several partners being only a right lo the surplus in the settlement of the partnership concerns, after the partnership debts are paid. And the creditors of an individual partner are entitled to no more than his interest in the surplus. 6 Mass. Rep. 24,2 and 271 ; 11 ditto, 472 and 249 ; 17 ditto, 206 ; 16 Johnson, 102 ; 1 Wendell, 311 ; 2 Johns. 280 ; 2 Conn. Rep. 477 ; 4 ,ditto, 540 ; 2 Johns. C. Rep. 548 ; 4 ditto, 525 ; 20 Johns. 625 ; 5 Johns C. Rep. 41%; 4 Vesey, 396 ; 15 ditto, 557 ; 17 ditto, 193 ; Cowper, 449 and 471.

It appears that there was no sale by Dean and company to any person, but that firm pledged the goods to S. Winchester, to indemnify him against his liability for B. Chase and G. Winchester, with power to sell and satisfy the debt. The goods remained the property of Dean and company, when the writ in this case was served, and the pledge was fraudulent and void as against, the creditors of Dean and company, as there was no debt due from that firm, nor any consideration received for the pledge. 2 Vesey, Sob. on Fraud. Con. 73 junior, 244, Anderson v. Maltby ; ; 3 N. II. Rep. 425.

The pledging of the partnership fund, or giving the partnership security by an individual partner for his private debt, is fraudulent, and does not bind the other partners. I East, 48, Sherriff v. Wilks; 4 Johns. 251, Livingston v. Roosevelt. So the sale of goods, known to be partnership property in payment of the debt of one partner is invalid. 16 Johns. 34, Bob v. Halsey. So the release of a partnership debt on a like consideration is void. 5 Cowen, 489, Gram v. Cad-well.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress