Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 N.H. 98

38 A 382

Schmidt v. Ellis

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1896

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1896-12-05

Appeal, from the decree of the judge of prohate, adjudging the defendants insolvent. Facts agreed. In 1892, the defendants, Ellis of Manchester and Tirrell of Boston, Massachusetts, bégan business in Manchester as copartners under the name of Ellis & Co. All the business of the firm has been done in Manchester, and they have had elsewhere no partnership property.

Relies on Ayer & Co. v. Weeks · Smith v. Stanley · Smith v. Hammond

Decided 1896-12-05

Carpenter, C. J.

¶1 The statute providing that “ the insolvency of a partnership shall render each partner insolvent within the meaning of this chapter, and his property . . . shall pass to the messenger and assignee appointed in the partnership proceedings” (P. S., c. 201, s. 46) is applicable to such partners only as reside in the state. The insolvency court has no jurisdiction of non-resident debtors. P. S., c. 201, ss. 6, 42; Ayer v. Weeks, 65 N. H. 248; Smith v. Stanley, 67 N. H. 328; Smith v. Hammond, 68 N. H. 363. Tirrell individually and his private property are not affected by the decree. But his exemption from the operation of the law does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction over Ellis, his individual property, and the partnership property in his possession. No more does the circumstance that Tirrell’s separate property cannot be here administered and distributed among his creditors afford any reason why the property of Ellis and of the firm should be “screened from the operation of the insolvent.law.” McDaniel v. King, 5 Cush. 469, 476.

¶2 Appeal dismissed.

All concurred.
/69/nh/98 · .json · Public domain