New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-06-17
DISSOLUTION OF COMPREHENSIVE
IMPORTANT DECISION IN BANKRUPTCY,

The firm of VIM. A. Harder g. Co. COM
menced business at Philmont, Columbia County, JAN
1862 under written articles Of agreement 10 continue
three years. In November 1862 Horton Harder OF
the partners, under agreement with his firm pub
shed notice in the newspapers at Hudson that he had
Withdrawn from the firm, and executed bill of sale of
his interest in the firm property 10 person not con
neced with the firm. The other partners continued the
business in the usual and bought goods Of II.
II. Claim * Co, A. T. Stewart CO.. and Others
firm In March or april last the firn failed and H. b.
Clain Co., filed their petition for an adjudication of
bankruptcy against the firm Of Vim. a. Harder Co., and
the members OF that firm, including Horton Harder. No
one appeared except Horton Harder, who filed special
answer denying that he was member Of the firm, and
that is the issue now on trial.
The examination came on yesterday before Judge
creditors proved that the copartners did not assent
TO the withdrawal of Horton Harder, and therefore the
firm not dissolved and that the transfer by Horton
Harder not made in good faith, but for the purpose
Of shielding himself from payment OF the Indebtedness
On the conclusion OF evidence counsel for each client
moved that the Court direct verdict in his favor and
discussed the question to whether partner had the
right TO withdraw from firm without the consent of his
future liability for the obligations contracted in the firm
and also the question to whether the agreement
of Withdrawal really constituted Withdrawal irOm the
Judge Blatchford in his opinion said:
SsH Horton ,e Ia HG George P wa. @
Even e's soped va. 9ased sale y one eSPasr Of bis inter
made By the am ihsi not this The deed aud bin Of sale by
I.T Soa % H d s% ana S
diSOut the VIM A. Harder
effect ouy bet by the parties
Harder vOuh
profit Even Csan Co. the peonng cor had notice OF the
ged sale by Horton Harder sud should have inquired
Harder they could have learned thsn contents
Of these papers think the partnership
tnued notwithstanding the execution Of pspers
The like ingenious scheme the
the benefit o the caoerh profits and not he liable
loss somewhat singular that neither Horton Haner Philips his
partner knew anything Of the condition Of the in the time
OF these IL absolute sale Of hs Interest had
tended and this Connection with ibe fact that they did
ths condition Of the we'd
interest whatever H. AMI rsn no Ik 1t evident that Philips
wiling 10 rest the guarantees Of Norton
Harier that he would he able his 5000
The os9ahcrsp The conduct Horton
consistent With the views taken by tie Csa The notice
H. psper only PuIasnec Of the agreement Of dissolution The
IN Transaction uHt The construction Of the paper
oil sd under must direct verdict that Horton Harder is in.
s rig TIE petition end indebted Jointly with the other
four ds member Of the rtnrrhP hu Of VIM A. Harder
Go.
Tho IN ~ beTeuPon returned verdict In accordance
with 1e ,cws set forth by the Court. For petiti0nng
crciitors J. yanferpocl and j. sterling Smith for
spondent VI. A. Harder john A. Parsons and A. Frank
4. Chacc.