Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1834-11-27
LAW.

| The following legal decision by the
Chancellor of New York, is of interest to
men in trade and business:
| IN CHANCERY
| Elizabeth Havens and Samuel F. Dorr, VS., Abb
| by Hussey, and Others.
This was an appeal from the decision of
!. the Vice Chancellor of the first circuit re-
iuslng to dissolve an injunction, and direc-
ting the appointment of a receiver. The
complainant, Elizabeth Ravens, and the
defendant, Abby Hussey, were co-partners
IN clothing store in the city of New York.
under the name or firm of E. Ravens g.
Co., and for the purpose ofcarrylng on the
business of the firm, they executed writ
ten power, constituting J. Havens, The son
Of tho complainant, and F. G. Macy, one
OF the defendants, their attornies, with fui.
power and authority for that purpose. The
business was carried on by such attornies
TOR about three years, when the firm became
insolvent, whereupon the complainant gave
TO her son special power to act in her be-
halt In closing up the concerns cr the firm
lO'N - hSSOeiutioh was UGIWeeu
him and Abby Hussey for that purpose
The parties not being able to agree, the de-
fendant, A. Hussey, without the consent of
her copartner, q against the remonstrances
of her son who was present and attending
to her interests, executed an assignment Of
lall the partnership property and effects to
the defendants, F. G Macy and r. C. Fol-
ger, in trust to pay certain favorite credit.
ors, in preference to the general creditors
of the firm. Whereupon the present bill
was filed for the purpose of closing up the
concerns of the partnership, and to restrain
the assignees from proceeding on the as
Segment, and for the appointment Of a re
ceiver of the property and effects of the
! firm, so that rateable distribution thereof
might be made among all the creditors, un-
der the direction of the court.
B. F. Butler and J. Van Buren, for the
appellants.
Elias II. Fly, for the respondents.
The CHANCELLOR - In the case of Egg
berts vs.. Wood, g. Paige's Rep. Sly l
had occasion to refer to most of the case
relative to assignment Of copartnership ef-
fects, made by one of the copartners. And
II then arrived at the conclusion that from,
the nature of the contract of copartnersb;n
one of the copartners, durins the con,ipn'
ance of the partnership micbt m.ko valid
assignment of the pi rtnership effects ar a,
much thereof as was necessary for thu,
purpose, in the name of the firm, directly
to one or more of the creditors. in paynen,
IF his or their debts; although the effect of
such assignments was to give preference
to one set of creditors over another Ri
as it was not necessary for the decision of
that case, I did not express anv opin;on a
to the validity of an assignment Of the
pa, tnership effects bv one mariner against
the known wishes of his copartners 10 a
trustee for the benefit of the favor;te cred;
tors of the assignor: aud in frand If tho
rights of his CO partners TO nar,;c;n.,e in
the distribution of the partnersb;, EFFECTS
among the creditors. or in The decision az
the questions as to which of the cred;tors
lifany, should have preference. in payment
out Of the effects of an insolvent concern
The present case presents that question dis
tinctiy for the decision of the court And
upon the most deliberate examination of
the question, am satisfied that the decision
of the Vice Chancellor is correct, thai such
an assignment is both ILLEGAL and nneou;
table, and cannot be sustained The nr;n-
c,ple upon which an assignment by one
partner in payment of partnership DEL,
..,l. :, H.. H.. =: = n.