The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1864-05-13

above rates, 70 which we bind ourselves strictly 10
| adhere. WIN. CAMERON, for the Union,
JOHN WALLACE. for the D5patch.
NASHVILLE, TESE.. July 25. 1853.
Important Decision Under the COnas-
cation Act.
A very important point was decided
| in the United States Circuit Court
Wednesday The Nashville Patriot news
paper establishment had been libelled
for confscation under the act of August
6, 1861. Mr.. Thomas Calender, mem
Der of the firm of a. S. Camp & Co,
the owners of the establishment, by his
counsel, moved the Court for an order
of reference to the Clerk to ascertain
the creditors of the firm and the amount
of Indebtedness due from the firm to
parties in New York, Cincinnati and
other places, with view to having the
liabilities of the firm discharged out of
the partnership effects seized This is
the first instance where this question
has been brought up, and the Court
made the order for the reasons fully
set forth in the opinion.-Dispatch.
The opinion of the Court was deliV-
cred by Judge Trigg, and is as follows
The United states vs.. The Houses and Lots Press
81, Type, &c, OF the Nashville Patriot NewspG-
per.
Thomas Calender having been adj
n1itted claimant of the property seiz-
ed in this cause, has filed his claim and
answer, il which it is alleged that Ira
?. Jones, Henry Edmondson, Anthony
s. Camp, and the said claimant are the
true and bona fide owners Of the prop
erty seized, except the real estate,
which belongs 10 other parties named
in the answer. de states q partnership
between himself and the others, under
the firm name Of A. s. Camp 4 Co, and
that the property seized, and to which
he asserts his claim, is the property Of
said partnership. The said Calender
also pleads, by way of defence to this
suit, that he has aYailed himself Of the
pardon and amnesty offered by the
President of the United States, by his
proclamation of the 8th of December,
1868, and in good faith has taken and
subscribed the oath prescribed therein.
1t is further stated in the answer of
the said Calender that the partnership
of A. S. Camp j. Co. owed debts in New
York, Cincinnati, and other places,
amounting to a considerable sum Of
money, and that the only means of dis
charging those liabilities consisted of
the partnership effects seized in this
cause
The said claimant now moves this
Court for an order of reference to the
Clerk and Master, to ascertain the cred
itors of the firm of A. S. Camp j. Co,
and the amount of Indebtedness due
from said firm or partnership to the
creditors thereof, with a view to having
the liabilities Of said firm discharged
out of the partnership effects seized in
this cause.
This motion involves a question Of
considerable interest, both to the Gov
eminent and the creditors of the firm
or co-partnership of A S. Camp 4 Co,
of whom it will be observed the said
Calender is the only member who has
appeared and set up any claim to the
property seized The question present
ed for consideration to the Court is,
whether the creditors of the firm of A.
S. Camp Il Co. are entitled to priority
in the payment of the debts due them
out of the assets of the firm seized as
stated in the information fled on be-
half of the United States, or whether
the fact of seizure for the causes in said
information stated, overreaches and de-
feats the rights or claims of all other
parties. This question may be regarded
as a new one, there not having been, to
my knowledge, a similar one raised
upon either of the recent acts Of Con-
gress confscating the property Of per
sons engaged in or aiding and abetting
the existing rebellion against the au-
thority and government Of the United
States. But it is question which must
be decided upon those principles Of
law, in relation TO the rights Of partners
as between themselves, and the rights
of the creditors of the co-partnership,
which have been defined and estab-
lished by long course Of Judicial sane
ton
If this were a question simply be-
tween creditors of the copartnership, or
between them and creditors of the in
dividual members of the firm, it would
be one of very easy solution But in
this case, by the act of the individual
partners of members of the association,
and in virtue Of law of the United
States, forfeiture of the social assets,
20 the Government, has interviewed, and
one of the members of the firm having
purged himself of the offence creating
the forfeiture, il is 20 be ascertsined %
what extent that fact restores 70 him
his original rights as partner IN re-
spect to the property forfeited, and in
what manner the rights Of creditors Of
the association are effected BY H.
Ii is well settled principle that each
partner has certain rights, liens, and
privileges on the capital stock, funds
and effects of the partnership, and that
no one partner has any right or share IN
the partnership property, except what
remains Of it after the full discharge
and payment Of all debts and Liabilities
Of the partnership. (Story on Partner
ship, sec. 81
In the case Of the United States vs..
Hack and others, in s Peters Reports,
at page 275, the Court says: II is q
rule too well settled to be now called
in question, that the interest Of each
partner in the partnership property, is
his share in the surplus, after the part
nership debts are paid; and that the
surplus only l. liable for the separate
debts of such partners. It's needless
to multiply authorities upon this doc
trine, for as theSuprsme Court says, the
rule is too wen settled 70 be now called
in question.