, 1859-11-08

The Law OF pAnrsEnsu1r.-ltnryD Do.y r.
Htnry U.acload It al.-Thss case, involving
some polufs ol interest to commercial men, was
before tie Superior Court Of Cbicago three days
Of tic last week. It came npon motions By the
plaintiff for rece;x.r and to dissolve the part
nership between Do,y and 1iowland, lumber
men on the South Branch, and on like motion
by the deiendants 10 dissolve the injunctions
ia The cause.
The case was argued By II. G. Spadosd and
5. ! Goodwin for the plaintiff, md j. l.. Stark
and IL. G. Miller for defendants.
1t appeared that on tue 18th Sept. last, How
land made general ASST yuMlent in the name OF
the company tn 4 trustee, giving preferences to
lnrge M cunt TO individual creditors, to whom
he had in fact given firm paper.
It's charged in the bill that no assent Of anv
kind wus ever given by the complainant to the
use oi the firm name in payment OF ilow!cnd's
Individual debts; that no complainant had no
knowledge after the execution Of the assign
mcnt, that Nowland had so used the firm nalne;
and that the assignment is void for fraud.
The sworn answer Of Rowland declares that
assent 10 such use of the firm name was ex-
rrcs.Iy given by said complainant, and that
complainant knew Of such use.
Judge Wilson, III deciding the motion, said:
''Some pu1t Of the labor Of counacl might have
been saved had they known that the mnin ques-
tion in this case was recently before this Court
tunreported} aud received deliberate examina-
lion:
II consider this case ns an attempt By one
partner apparently to devote the property and
assets Of the firm 10 the payment OF bis own
private debts. The case furnishes no proof that
tle firm notes given Tor bis indviduai debts br
Rowland were SO given With the assent Of
Doty-
"lt is apparent that there VII. no necessity
Tor au assignment By the firm. Its conrex,ib!e
a.sets largely exceeded its legitimate debts.
at is just as apparent that llowland was in
iyiduallv insolvcnt, and execution against How
land would reach this property. The concern
! must therefore soon hare stopped md the Gre.
d,tors Of the firm would have been compelled
to file bills to marshal the assets-
"The evidence shows that Mr.. Doty knew
that Rowland had private dcbt which be was
carTyiu: along. hut there is nothing in the
book. Of the flrm nor in the whole coI7rspon.
dencc 10 show Dotv thai Rowland was using tho
! namc Of the hrm for this purpose. Ia the
10 Doty. that be {Howlano) is in advance, and
urg,ng Doty 10 raise money for him for this
reason. Why should be say this il be under
| stood that these were firm debts or rotes. lie
would hare said re must hare money, or raise
money 10 pay our notes.
II unde rstand the Law to be that one partner
| has no ri gl't to make general assignment with
| preferences. Ali the cases cited and relied on
aze exceptional cases, Is Crouch SA,; Brock
| 455; 4 Mott and McCosd 5l:,. 3ir. l,oty
| could hare been consulted in this case.
| He was here the night before aud also
the day nfter the assignment He resided q:
Detroit, but twelve hours ride from this place,
aud within reach Of the telegraph. The tights
Of partners arc equal Doty had IS much right
| to do this thing as Rowland Suppose be lad,
and preferred his Detroit frisode, would How
land be satisfied with such an assignment.
"lt is 10 be regretted that the Courts bare
ever upheld d general assignment with prefer
ences. While the business is going On the par
| tt must necessarily have this power, and ipar
| par debts or sell goods. But when ii comes to
| question Of general assignment the reason OF
the rule ceases. So far as the cases hold me j
shall be controlled. But If it were new oues.
tiou should never sustain such m assignment,
It is contrary 10 the general principle Of a1l in.
solvent laws, and the bankrupt laHs of England
and the United States, and also Of the statute.
regulating the administration Of the estates oi
deceased persons. II the courts had follower
these auatosies As 10 general assignments they
would hare rendered lhe law more ha1monIou:
in my jnd gment, and better subserved the
ends Of JUSTICE. By the law as it stands thess
debtors had right to make Al assignment viii
preferences, although think they ought not tt
| possess that right. In this case there was nj
difficulty in consulting Doty. It never con]t
have bean supposed indeed ihas he would sigr
this instrument As IN honest nan he mere
! could hare consented, because a. such b,
should devose the partnership property to th'
| payment Of partnership debts. This ASH iignmen