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

debts of the firm are paid, would seem
to imply, in the absence of other au
thority, that the creditors of the part
nership also have certain rights 10 re
spect to the partnership effects which
cannot be overlooked. For until the
debts of the partnership are all paid
and it is ascertained that there is q
surplus, the individual partners have
interest But we need not resort tc
mere implication to deduce the rights
of partnership creditors. Their righti
in respect to the social effects are
equally as well defined, as those of the
Individual members of the firm in re
spect to each other.
In the section before referred to in
Story on Partnership, it is said " As be
tween the partners themselves, the
debts and liabilities of the firm tC
creditors and the third persons are q
fund appropriated, in the first instance
to the discharge and payment of such
debts and liabilities, and there is
properly speaking, as between them, q
lien thereon, or at least an equity
which may be worked out through the
partners in favor Of the creditors, al
though it may not directly attach in
the creditors by virtue of their original
claims, in all classes" See also Martin
IL Yerger's Reports, Sl9, and the au-
thorities there cited, in which it is held
" that the joint creditors of partner
ship, have in equity a general lien on
the funds of the partnership" etc. 1t
viii be observed that according to these
authorities the creditors of partner
ship have in equity a general lien, etc.
But it IS different with respect to the
members of the partnership as between
themselves, for it is said that each
partner has specific lien on the pre-
sent and future property of the part
nership, not only for debts and liabih-
ties due to third persons, but also for
his own amount of share of the capital
stock, etc. (Story on Part. Sec 81
4 Sneed's Reports, $50
Now these rules by which the rights
of partners in respect to, the partner,
ship effects, and the rights also Of credi
tors, are so well defined, would seem to
be easy application in controversies be
tween individuals. But the case in
which their application is now involved,
is one instituted, on behalf of the Gov
eminent, against property, to enforce
its forfeiture to the United States, on
account Of violation Of law of Con
gress, by the owners Of it 1t is not a
debt due from the claimant and his CO.
partners to the United States, and con
sequently it is not struggle between
creditors as to who is entitled to priori-
ty of payment out of the partnership
effects. But it is a seizure, for the pur-
pose Of confscation, by the United
States, of partnership property, alleged
to be forfeited, on account OF the un-
lawful acts and conduct of the partners.
The Individual members Of the firm OF
A. S. Camp u Co, it is alleged in the in
formation, were aidinga and abetting the
existing rebellion against the United
States Government, and for that cause
claims to have the property mentioned
in it condemned as forfeited.
Thomas Calender is the only mem
Der of the partnership who has appear
ed as a claimant, and he having filed
his answer to the information, and
pleaded the pardon of the President OF
the United States, insists that the credi-
tors of the firm of which he is a mem
Der are entitled to be paid their debts
out of the partnership funds, and to
that end he asks an account to be or
dered, US before stated.
If all the members of the firm of A.
s. Camp x Co were still in rebellion,
against the Government, / would not
hesitate as to the disposition of this
motion. For the act of Congress of
March 3, 1863, provides only for the pay
ment, out of the proceeds of the pro
perty seized, of the bona tide claims of
loyal citizens, which might have been
enforced specifically against such proper
ty, and the creditors of the partnership
not having such claim would not be
permitted to intervene. But if any one
or more of the partners had not engag-
ed in, or aided and abetted the rebel
lion, but had remained true and loyal
citizens, and the partnership property
had been seized for the offence of other
members of the firm; the loyal partner
had interposed his claim, and asked
that the creditors of the partnership be
paid out of the property, and to ascer-
tain their debts that an account be or
dered, could this Court, under the au-
thorities before cited, have done other
wise than have ordered it? think not
For the application would come from 8
party who stands in a relation different
from that of a creditor. The creditor
only having, according to the authOri-
ties, a general lien IN equity which may
be worked out through the partners in
their favor, while the partner has a
specific hen on the partnership property,
and the property will be held liable, if
it can be identified, until the liabilities
are settled
The rights then Of the unoffending
partner in respect to the partnership
property seized for confscation under
the recent acts Of Congress, IL seems to
me, would be preserved, and he might
properly insist, as matter Of Justice
and for his own security, that all La
bilities of the partnership should be
discharged before any interest Of his
associates could be subjected
70 the forfeiture incurred for the only
interest they would have would be in
the surplus, and that may be none at
all
The pardon, according to the authori-
ties, relieves the party from the penal
ties incurred by the act producing the
forfeiture and restores him to his origi-
nal rights A pardon" says Bacon,
prior 10 a conviction, shall prevent all
fOrfeitures of lands OF goods And in
this country, il is held, and think gen
orally conceded, that the pardon Of the
President reinstates the offending par
IS to the same position which he occu-
pied before the commission of the act
for which 1t is granted
And the claimant, Thomas Calender.
having aYailed himself Of the Presi-
dents proclamation Of amnesty and
pardon issued on the Sth day of De-
cember, 1863, and complied with the
conditions therein contained, must
now, in my opinion, occupy the same
towards the Government, his
cO-partners, and the creditors Of the
firm Of A S. Camp x Co,
which he would, if no seizure had been
made Of the partnership effects, and he
had remained a loyal citizen Of the
United States And this being so, I
think it IS the right of the said Csllen-
der who had, under the laws, at the
time Of the seizure, = specific hsn upon
al the effects Of the partnership, and
thus claim superior 70 that Of the
Government, las against the other part
ners,) to have the debts Of bona fds