Case Name: Morris Gordon vs. Maxwell H. Borans & others
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1915-10-25
Citations: 222 Mass. 166
Docket Number: 
Parties: Morris Gordon vs. Maxwell H. Borans & others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 222
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
Morris Gordon vs. Maxwell H. Borans & others.
Suffolk.
October 22, 1915.
October 25, 1915.
Present: Rttgg, C. J., Lobing, Crosby, Pierce, & Carroll, JJ.
Equity Pleading and Practice, Appeal. Equity Jurisdiction, To reach and apply equitable assets. Partnership, Bill to reach and apply interest in partnership property.
In a suit in equity under R. L. c. 159, § 3, cl. 7, as amended by St. 1910, c. 531, - § 2, to reach the interest of the principal defendant in partnership property and apply it to the payment of his debt to the plaintiff, where on an appeal to this court no evidence was reported and the findings of the trial judge established the facts of the debt and of the principal defendant’s interest in the partnership property and the decree ordered the sale of such interest in appropriate terms within the scope of the bill, it was held that there was no merit in the appeal and the decree was affirmed with double costs.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This case comes before us on appeal from a final decree in favor of the plaintiff entered in accordance with a finding of facts made by the trial judge. No evidence is reported. The only question open is whether the decree conforms to the allegations of the bill and could lawfully be entered on the facts found. It is a simple bill under R. L. c. 159, § 3, cl. 7, as amended by St. 1910, c. 531, § 2, to establish the plaintiff's debt and reach and apply an interest of the principal defendant in partnership property which cannot be attached or seized on execution in an action at law. The finding establishes the debt, the decree is in accordance therewith and in appropriate terms orders the sale of the defendant's interest in the partnership property. It is too plain for discussion that there is no merit in the appeal.
H. A. Mintz, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief.
S. J. Freedman, for the defendants, stated that he did not care to be heard or to file a brief.
Decree affirmed with double costs.
Jenney, J.