The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-12-09
>UPRLME COURT CASES.
eported for The tlsrion. hv n "A. Parker
Attorney at Law, jackson, Miss
October Term 1855.
l.. G. FULToN

l.. VI Il UiiHN
IT, G. HUGHs.
From the Circuit Court of Leake
ounty. A. G. Mtyers, Judge
Partnership: po,cer Of partners 10 dis
p sc Of It's property .Eoi lence to imDeqch
vitness: achea incompetent.
COOPER, c. j.:
n. J. Fulton and ". NJ. Hughs, while
partners in mercantile business as
Fulton & Hugh-, became indebted ia
a peilant aud also to appellee. The
partnership was afterwards dissolved by
the withdrawal of Fulton. Hnghs
assuming the liabilities. Hughs then
transferred to NJ. J Hughs, the appellee.
he bonks and accounts of the late firm
n settlement on the amount due tn her
by it. After this, appellant recove red
Judgment for the amount of his indebt
ednesS against Fulton and Huehs. and
sarn'shed certain debtors of the firm
Appellee interposed her claim under the
sale to her of the books and accounts
made by w. Nj. Hughs. The first trial
IN The circuit court of the issue thus
rai~ed resulted in verdict for appellant.
This was set aside and new trial grant
e'i; on which there was a verdict for the
appellee.
Ii WIS not error to set aside the first
verdict and grant new trial to the
claimant
The fact that n. J. Fulton had
sold out his interest in all the assets of
he firm to w. VI. Haghs is undispnted
aud since Fulton no longer had any
interest in them, no instructions should
have been given as to the distinction
between firm debts and the individual
debts of Hughs. Tie creditors of the
firm had no lien upon the goods or
chooses in action which had previously
belonged to the firm. but which. on its
dissolution, became the property of
Highs. and as he alone nas owner he
might lawfully appropriate them to the
payment of any debt which he owed.
whether it was a debt due by the late
tlrm or bs himself alone. Scamidlapp
Is Cmrie, SO Miss
The court below properly refused to
permit the plaintiff to impeach the cred
bilty of tie witness w vi. Hughes Nv
Ii wing that he had at other time.
made contradictory statements in refer
ence TO the transfer of the books of
account tn the claimant. No foundation
had been laid for the introduction of
5 oh evidence The fact that the evi
ienee of tue witness was in the shape of |
a worn stat -nent, made by the counsel |
l"r the claimant ia bis application for |
aud consequently that no |
wis afforded Ia lav the feun |
iation for impt aching the evidence hv |
4 rt,ss-examlpatIoE of the witness, does |
81. creae an exception Ia the rule. |
The plaintiff should have declined to |
admit the affidavit as the testimony Of /
he witness if he desired to re,ain the /
right 10 impeach him. II is well settled |
n this State thar it is necessary to lay /
he foundation for the impeaching evi I
fence by calling the attention of the |
witness to the conflicting statement.
Ne,rcomab .. State, 81 Miss; Scarborough /
! STATE, 81 Miss; Mitchell q. .Sariags IL
fifatioH, SO Miss.
An examination of the record satisfies
Is that errors were committed for both
plaintiff and claimant; but re are also
afisfied that any other result than a
ferdict for the claimant could not follow
new trial. 16frmed.
D. G. Beauchamp, @. A. Luckett, Jr.,
Or appellant.
G. III. C. Davis, coafra.