The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-05-06

"
deed was signed by julius Steenbock, who
also signed the firm name to 1t, and by
Forbes, and was acknowledged and ad-
mitted to record in the clerks office of the
Hastings Court; all on the said 10th day
of April. Nicholas Steenbock returned to
the city during the night, and soon after 9
o'clock the next morning appeared at the
clerks office and signed and acknowledged
the same deed. So that the deed was
signed by julius Steenbock, by J. Steen-
book s. Co., by Nicholas Steenbock, and
by N. H. Forbes-a fact which was dwelt
| upon by the counsel for Clafilin & Co. as
affording proof that julius Steenbock did
| not claim to have the right, and did not
intend, to convey the social effects in trust
to pay the social debts.
Between the time, however, when the
deed was admitted to record and the time
of its signature and acknowledgment by
Nicholas Steenbock, one or more addition
al attachments were sued out and levied
| upon the goods of Steenbock s. Co., issued,
we believe, not from the clerks office, but
by Justice Of the peace. 1t was to the
question as between these attachments and
the deed of trust that the decision yester-
day rendered by Judge Lyons went.
We did not hear the argument on Fri
day, but learned from the argument of
Claffiin's counsel that the counsel for Steen-
book for Forbes is simply trustee)
claimed that the deed was valid in law +;
that julius Steenbock, as one of the firm,
had the undoubted right to convey the
partnership effects to pay the partnership
debts that the deed was good one, and
&D fhn xpifh
the signature of Nicholas Steenbock and
that such being the case, there was nothing
for the last attachments to take hold Of,
and they should be quashed. They cited
case in 1st Brockenbrough, decided by
Chief Justice Marshall, and also two cases
lin one) in sth Leigh, decided by the Court
of Appeals of Virginia in 1886, in all of
which it had been held that one partner
could convey the partnership effects, not
simply for the benefit of creditors, but of
preferred creditors.
The counsel for Clafflin & Co. argued
that there were marked differences be-
tween the cases cited and the one at the
bar. But there was a-question before this
namely, had any deed conveying the social
effects in trust to pay the social debts
been made? They contended that there
had not because the deed on its face bore
evidence that neither julius Steenbock nor
Forbes supposed it to be finality. 1t did
not purport to deed by one partner con-
| veying the social effect. No such claim
was set up when the deed was made, nor
when acknowledged and admitted to re-
cord. The language was, " This deed,
made the 10th day of April, 1867, between
mot julius Steenbock and N. H. Forbes,
but) julius Steenbock and Nicholas Steen-
book, merchants and partners trading un-
der the firm of Steenbock & Co., Of the
first part, and Nestor II. Forbes, of the
sec ond part, witnesseth that they mot he
do hereby assign, transfer, and set over all
their mot hisl, &C., &c. 1t never was de-
signed as an individual conveyance of the
partnership effects, but was intended to
be signed by both partners, and was not
previously to be considered complete
deed. Why blank line had been left be-
tween the first two signatures and that of
Forbes for Nicholas Steenbock to sign
upon, and it was upon that line that he
had signed his name the next morning. and
after these attachments were issued. Be-
fore the deed was perfected the rights of
other parties had interviewed. Counsel
argued also that the record was complete
on the 10th of April, and beyond the
reach of anybody-judge, clerk, or any
one else. If it could be altered the next
day, it might be the next week, the next
month, or the next year. No "profane !"
could come into that sanctuary and lay his
| impious hand upon the record. Counsel
also referred the court to the twenty-third
L .o&I Of hn han mt
law, and argued that the deed was void
under that law-not voidable, but abso-
lutely void, and might be declared so by
Judge Underwood next month. As to
this point, Steenbock's counsel cited the
twentieth section of the same law as show
ing that deeds of trust and other liens
would be respected.l
Counsel then referred to the cases cited.
Both were cases in equity, not at law.
There was a difference in the circum-
stances of the parties. In the case in Sth
Leigh Bonneville Us. Nc Culloch) the deed
was made by the active, resident, mana
ging party. In this case, by the inactive,
nonresident, non-managing partner, who
couldn't sell yard Of tape without his
partners consent. The point made by
the Judges of the Court of Appeals in the
case referred to was that I" one OF the
partners residing out of the State" the re-
sident one could convey the partnership
effects to pay the partnership debts. So
in the case decided by Judge Marshall, it
was decided that one partner being IN
Europe, and the other in possession OF all
the effects, the former must have intended
that the latter should have such right as
that to convey the effects in trust.
Judge Lyons decided that the deed was
a valid one, and passed the title to the
effects to Forbes, so that no attachment
issued subsequent to its acknowledgment
by julius Steenbock, and admission to re-
cord, could touch the property, one part
ner having the right to convey the whole
Of the partnership effects in trust even for
the benefit of preferred creditors.
This decision leaves the property still
hanging between the attachment issued
before the deed of trust was made and the
deed of trust itself. This case was con
tinued until the next term of the court. ;.
Steenbock s. Co. may now give bond
recover possession Of their goods, and con
tinue their business. We do not know
that they propose to do so, but suppose i
likely.
CIRCUIT Court OF RICHMoND-JUDGl
JOHN A. MEREDITH PRESIDING. = Thi
| oourt will commepce its regular session il