The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1891-11-07

alton of natural love and affection and to
provide maintenance for them. At the
| time of the conveyance w. was advanced
in age, and declared that his reason for
making the conveyance was because he
had given due share Of his property to
his other children; there being nothing in
the record to show the value Of the pro-
perry in the conveyance, or to rebuff the
statement as to the gift to the other chill
dren: Held, in a contest between the
children of the grantor by former mar
rage and the widow and child by the
second marriage, that the conveyance is
good in equity and will be sustained.
8. A conveyance to wife tor life and at
the termination of the lite estate to child
then in being as tenant in common with
any other heir or heirs of the grantor and
the tenant for life, and in default of any
other such heirs, to the said child in fee,
creates a vested remainder in such child.
4. Mere mental weakness will not author
| izc q court of equity to set aside deed,
| if il does not amount to inability to COM
prehend the effect and nature OF the tran
sacli ion, and is unaccompanied by evidence
of imposition or undue influence.
8. A decree of a chancellor solely on
questions of fact will not be disturbed I'm
less the evidence clearly shows that it was
erroneous
| Decree affirmed.
Geo. B. Hodge, Foster & Gunby, for ap-
pellants; Andrew Johnson, for appellees.
E. Moulie, Plaintiff in Error, vs.. George
Hughes ct al, Defendants in Error
Duval county.
MABRY, j.:
1. In an action on contract that defen-
dants agreed to take and pay for all the per-
fumes and beverages Of plaintiffs manu-
facture during the period of one year, the
breaches alleged were, that defendants,
after part performance of said contract,
refused to take and pay for goods as
therein provided; and defendants pleaded
that they had kept and performed all
matters and things specified in said con
tract to be kept and performed on their part.
The findings of referee on the issues of
fact thus rendered accorded the same
consideration as the verdict of jury.
2. The acceptance OF the finding of the
referee as correct that defendants had not
violated their contract with plaintiff, renders
| it unnecessary to inquire into the extent and
measure of plaintiffs rights in the uncom-
| pleted portion OF such contract.
3. All debts aud demands mutually
existing between the parties at the
commencement of suit are proper subjects
of set-of, but the terms "debts and
demands" refer to matters arising out OF
contract express or implied.
Judgment affirmed.
Fletcher & Wurts, for plaintiff in error;
John E. Hartridge, for defendants in error.
Schleicher, Schumm q Co., Plaintiffs in
Error. VS.. John T. Walker, Defendant in
Error.-Duval county.
| RANEY, @. j:
l. Partnership creditors have not as
| such, any lien on partnership assets.
2. The equity of partnership creditors to
have partnership assets applied to partner
ship debts as against claims of creditors of
any one member Of the firm Is dependent
entirely upon the lien or equity of the other
member OF members OF the firm to have
such application
g. One partner may upon voluntary die
solution ola firm sell to his copartner all his
interest In the partnership concern, and if
he do so bona fde before any lien has been
acquired thereon by partnership creditors
through an execution, an attachment or
otherwise, the transfer will, if such be the
intention of the partners, vest in the pur-
chasing partner Invested Of the equity of
the selling partner to have the partnership
assets applied to partnership debts.
4. A stipulation or covenant by the
purchasing partner to pay the firm debts is
not fatal to the good faith of transfer of
the other partners interest in the partner
ship concerns, nor 10 the divestiture of the
joint ownership.or partnership character of
the property; but to the contrary, such q
covenant may be the sole consideration of
the transfer.
5. Where one partner transfers his entire
interest in the partnership concerns to his
cOpartner so as to vest in the latter the
partnership assets as his sole property, a
dissolution of the partnership results.
6. The purchasing partner may as against
any simple creditor of the partnership
assign for the payment of his individual
debts the partnership property vested in
him as his sole property by transfer
from his partner. 1t seems that he may
exercise the same dominion over it which
he can over any other individual property.
z. The fact chat partners were in
solvent six weeks or more after transfer
by one OF them of his entire interest in the
partnership concerns to the other does not
establish their insolvence as of the time OF
such transfer nor avoid transfer as
fraud upon partnership creditors.
8. Where the questions of the good
faith of sale by one partner to another
and of an assignment by the latter to pay
his creditors and of the intent to hinder
and defraud creditors, and of whether
such sale was made in contemplation of
insolvency have been fairly submitted to a
jury, its finding will not be disturbed by
an appellate court unless the testimony
| iustifies it at least clearly.
Judgment affirmed.
A. w. Cockrell & Son, for plaintiffs in
error; Walker s. L'Engle, tor defendant
in error.