Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-196-Partnership-property.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:05:30+00:00

Document:
66. Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec.Sec. 234, 240; Brown v. Pridgen, 56 Tex. 124; Hill's Estate, 6 Wash. 285.
67. See 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3403; Rev. St. Ariz. 1887, Sec. 1467; Sayles' Civ. St. Tex. art. 2165; Hill's Gen. St. Wash. Sec. 1481.
68. Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec.Sec. 10, 253.
69. Parsons, Partnership, Sec. 265; Mechem, Partnership, Sec. 84; Shanks v. Klein, 104 U. S. 18, 26 L. Ed. 635; Nicoll v. Ogden, 29 111. 323, 81 Am. Dec. 311; Smith v. Smith, 179 Iowa, 1365, 160 N. W. 756; Jarvis v. Brooks, 27 N. H. 37, 59 Am. Dec. 359; Fairchild v. Fair-child, 64 N. Y. 477; Page v.
Thomas, 43 Ohio St. 38, 54 Am. Rep. 788; Diggs' Adm'r v. Brown, 78 Va. 292.
70. Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621, 34 L. Ed. 283; Roberts v. Eldred, 73 Cal. 394, 15 Pac. 16; People v. Sholem, 244 111. 502, 91 N. E. 704; Barkley v. Tapp, 87 Ind. 25; Paige v. Paige, 71 Iowa, 318, 60 Am. Rep. 799; McKee v. Covalt, 71 Kan. 772, 81 Pac. 475; Pepper v. Thomas, 85 Ky. 539, 4 S. W. 297; Shaw's Appeal, 81 Me. 207, 16 Atl. 662; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 562, 39 Am. Dec. 697; Whitney v. Cotten, 53 Miss. 689; Young v. Thrasher, 115 Mo. 222, 21 S. W. 1104; Jarvis v. Brooks, 27 N. H. 37, 59 Am.
Dec. 359; Fairchild v. Fairchild, 64 N. Y. 471; Adams v. Church, 42 Ore. 270, 59 L. R. A. 782, 95 Am. St. Rep. 740, 70 Pac. 1037; Hayes v. Treat, 178 Pa. 310, 135 Atl. 987; Betts v. Lecher, 1 S. Dak. 182; Murrell v. Mandelbaum, 85 Tex. 22, 34 Am. St. Rep. 777; Dewey v. Dewey, 35 Vt. 555; Hardy v. Norfolk Mfg. Co., 80 Va. 404.
71. Wray v. Wray (1905) 2 Ch. 349; Brunson v. Morgan, 76 Ala. 593; Blanchard v. Floyd, 93 Ala. 53, 9 So. 418; Bank of Southwestern Georgia v. McGarrah, 120 Ga. 944, 48 S. E. 393; Beaman v. Whitney, 20 Me. 413; Byam v.
Bickford, 140 Mass. 31, 2 N. E. 687; The Golden Rod, 197 Fed. 837.
72. Percifull v. Platt, 36 Ark. 456; Cole v. Mettee, 65 Ark. 503, 67 Am. St. Rep. 945, 47 S. W. 407; Winter v. Stock, 29 Cal. 408, 89 Am. Dec. 57; Bernstein v. Hobel-man, 70 Md. 29, 16 Atl. 374; Gille v. Hunt, 35 Minn. 357, 29 N. W. 2; Arthur v. Weston, 22 Mo. 378; Wright v. Brooks, 47 Mont. 99, 130 Pac. 968; Holmes v. Jarrett, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 506.
73. Riffel v. Ozark Land & Lumber Co., 81 Mo. App. 177; Spauld-ing Mfg. Co. v. Godbold, 92 Ark. 63, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 282, 135 firm name.74 In all jurisdictions, presumably, such a conveyance is effective for the purpose of creating equitable rights in favor of the members of the firm and the firm creditors.
Am St. Rep. 168, 19 Ann. Cas. 947, 121 S. W. 106a.
74. Silverman v. Kristufek, 162 111. 222, 44 N. E. 430.
75. Ames v. Ames, 37 Fed. 30; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 81 Ark. 68, 98 S. W. 685; Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 111. 244, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 Am. St. Rep. 883, and note; Blakeslee v. Blakeslee, 265 111. 48, 106 N. E. 470; Colener v. Greig, 137 Pa. 606, 21 Am. St. Rep. 899; Ihmsen v. Huston, 247 Pa. 402, 93 Atl. 601; City of Providence v. Bullock, 14 R. I. 353; Murrell v. Mandelbaum, 85 Tex. 22, 34 Am. St. Rep. 777.

References: v. 
 art. 2165
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.