New-York tribune., 1867-03-09
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-SPECGL TERM-MARcH
s-BefOre Judge CARDOzO.
EXECUTION OF INSoLvENT AsSIGNMENTS-wHO ARE
NECESSARY PARTIES

DE Nat Bank Of Baltimore Sackett and Other
This was a motion for Injunction restraining
the defelnants rom executing an assignment Of partner
ship property, in the absence Of Of the part
ners wlovOlnntarly abscOnded with large portion OF
the assets Of the partnersp and also for the appoint
validity Of an assignment made by two members OF g
firm without the consent Of the third member who had
voluntarily abscOndcd taking with him large portion
Of the partnership property. The question argued
before Judge CardozO, who gave the following
CARDozo J-I understand the following proposition to
be fairly deducible from the authorities
vent partnership may be valid although not executed by
has either been expressly granted or be Inferred
from circumstances. Trelles agt March $50 n y, ;sO
KSy c5 sst Pla BstGr ry z s j ' Roberts aS ohOr 'on
That Sich an assignment cannot be sustained where
the nonexecuting partner is present ee cases collected
In Palmer agt Myersl Barb jO9 and also Welter agt
s. That mere absence unaccompanied by any other cir
enmsLlnce, viii not imply power on the partners
present to execute such an assignment RObinsOn agt
Gregory, Court Of Appeals, December, 1861 cited in
welles agt March, sutral.
leaving letter authorizing the remaining partners to
close np the business and stating thai the interest OF the
them TO make general assignment Of the partnership
effcets Beles agt March, sufra, and also Kelly agt.
without leaving any eommnnieatlon has the ike effect
disposition of the Joint property palmer agt. Myers
should therefore have no difficulty in deciding the
question now presented except for the decision of the
General Term OF this Court in Adams Receiver agt.
HOughton nom which / disseDted in winch it was held
that the statute Of 1850 respecting mens required
that they should be acknowledged by the assignors
Cook agt. Kelly, IA Abb. 4o, assignment could not
behalf Of the principal But after careful consideration
Of course should and would do it docs not apply TO the
present case. IL should. think. be applied and only
extends to such assignments cannot he upheld unless
executed by all the partneras in the case OF all OF them
being here, or Of mere absence Of one Of them.
In other wOidslt relates to the form and manner IN
which the assignment be executed by those who
necessary parties TO it. but does not affect the question
oi VINO those necessary parties are But ule question
here who necessary parties To the instrument and
IN ths and similar cases think the assignment does not
need to be executed by in the OF the abscOnder
and good ard eifectua though executed by the par
remaining in charge 0f the business II the aDscOnd
ing OF partner only had the effect 20 give, by mplca
on, power TO his cOparnersto % act IN hsD name should
be OF opinion that as the General Term bad held that an
express power not sufficient 10 uphold insOyent
assignment implied one certainly could not be, and it
would present case whore owing 10 the mse0ndact OF
OF the partners the firm would be deprived Of ad
vantage which It ordinarily would possess But the effect
Of the above mentioned is and think should be ex
tended 1t Is To vest in those who remain the right TO
control and dispose OF the property in their the
sane II the abscOnding partner had further interest
In H. Their act though not done IN ms name binds HIM
and assignment executed by them effcctuay possess
the title OF the property OF the partnership although
ms name Is n9i affixed 70 u a. II sgned 10y an attorney
reaning partners 10 execute the assignment and thus
executed y conveys the language covers it, the whole
II these Views be correct the assignment as executed
an this ease pass the whole partnership property aud
having been duly personally acknowledged by All the
parties whose concurrence necessary under the
circumstances, - transfer the title, 1t is not amenable 10
any objection OF the character covered by decision in
AT
The other point relied upon does not 70 me to re-
quire any special remark.
The Injunction should be dissolved The costs may
abide the event OF the action.
TRIAL TERM-Before Judge DAILY.
Frrac sgt Hoboken Land and Improvement Co.
VERDICT AGAINST THE HOBOKEN FERRY COMPANY.
The plaintiff sued for damages sustained by him
while attempting 10 the HObOken Ferry horse
having fallen his foot while nc the ferry bridge,
and crushing il badly. The reported last Mon
morning the jury brought IN sealed verdict Tor the
plaintiff for 5000
Charles Wehe and Thomas Darlington for plaintiff;
Sanford Woodruff for defendant
EFFECT or THE REBELLION on PARTNERSHIPS.
NJ. Stea AIT BTalder and others
The present suit is really brought against a Mr..
Co OF NewOreans Of which IL is alleged he Is partner
In March, 1861 he entered into agreement 10 become
partner in that firm, though he states that 1t was con
ngent agreement and the contingency happened
At that tIne he was NewOieais and acted OF
the finn under the agreement but in month after left
NewOreans FOR NewYOrk where be has since continued.
II subsequent 20 this and Of subsequent
the breaking out Of the Rebellion, that the liability
for this paper was assumed by Brander d Co,
and IL was sl assumed before the reOccupatOn of New
Orleans by the United States forces. In July, 1902
JOrna dissolution Of the partnership made but II Is
On Of the United states authority in NewOrleaus and
She dissolution Of the partnership the defendant,
Matthews took part IN the affairs Of the partner
Ihp partner. 10 is argued by Matthews that II
be did become partner in that firm the breaking out OF
The Rebellion made himself and his cOparners eucnies
and destroyed the partnership absolutely.
On the other hand 1t is argued that the did not
render Il absolutely void but only vOdabe al the option
) the loyal party and That he having failed 10 exercise
That right, ana having, the contrary, subsequently
acted a. partner acknowledged its continuance and rat
fled "a past acts. ......
There Is also defense that the paper ia accommodation
paper; but TINS IS nor yct developed Case still on.
LOOd aud Mr. PictreU0nt FOR defendant.