This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1909 Excerpt: ...would of necessity affect the financial standing of the firm, by the presence of the capital which he had invested. Elkinton v. Booth, 143 Mass. 479; Shamburg v. Ruegles, 83 Penn. St. 148. The rule in England and in some States (see Carter v. Whalley, 1 B. & Ad. 11: Warren v. Ball, 37 Ill. 76) is that you must have ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1909 Excerpt: ...would of necessity affect the financial standing of the firm, by the presence of the capital which he had invested. Elkinton v. Booth, 143 Mass. 479; Shamburg v. Ruegles, 83 Penn. St. 148. The rule in England and in some States (see Carter v. Whalley, 1 B. & Ad. 11: Warren v. Ball, 37 Ill. 76) is that you must have actual knowledge of the existence of the dormant partner in order to charge him after withdrawal, but this seems not to be well founded, as it overlooks the influence which a dormant partner may have upon the financial standing of the firm, though his presence is not known. 34. A. and B. are copartners. A. becomes bankrupt and afterwards B. sells certain firm property. What rights would A.'s assignees in bankruptcy have against the property? None. Before the dissolution of the firm by the assignment of one of the partners, either of them had the right to bind the other by selling firm property, but after such dissolution the solvent partner has the right to wind up the business. No action by the assignee, therefore, would be possible, because the purchaser would get good title. Fox v. Hanburg, Cowp. 445. The power of a solvent partner to transfer firm property in the course of winding up the partnership is well established. Transfer by sale; Browning v. Marvin, 22 Hun (N. Y.), 547; Morgan v. Marquis, 9 Ex. 145. Transfer in payment of debts; Woodbridge v. Swann, 4 B. & Ad. 633. The solvent partner, if honest and competent, and resident within the jurisdiction, has the exclusive right of winding up the partnership. King v. Leighton, 100 N. Y. 356, 392. See also Ames, Cas. on Partnership, 561, note 2, cases collected. Similarly in case of the dissolution of the partnership by the death of one of the partners, the surviving partner or partner...
Read Less
