Case Name: Daniel Alexander v. David Stern
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1874
Citations: 41 Tex. 193
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel Alexander v. David Stern.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 193–198

Head Matter:
Daniel Alexander v. David Stern.
1. Suits to subject partnership property to firm debts.— Partnership property may be subjected to the debts of the partnership by service of citation on one member of the firm; and where the petition and citation authorizes the inference that this is the purpose of the suit, a judgment against the partnership is valid.
2. Judgment, form of.—A judgment that plaintiff recover of the member of the firm served with citation a sum certain, ‘"for which let execution issue, to be levied upon the goods and chattels of the firm, and upon the individual property of the defendant served with citation,” is a valid judgment against the partnership, under which the partnership property, real as well as personal, may be siezed and sold.
3. Dissolution of partnership, effect of.—The dissolution of the partnership before suit does not affect the creditor’s right to such judgment, so long as there is partnership property which could he subjected to execution upon a judgment obtained by service upon all the partners.
Appeal from Victoria. Tried below before the Hon. T. C. Barden.
Phillips, Lackey & Slayton, for appellant.
Glass & Callender, for appellee.

Opinion:
Walker, J.
The partnership firm of Levi Stern & Co. was dissolved in 1863, and the personal assets of the partners divided.
The property in controversy is real estate, and belongs to the partners as tenants in common. Each party could sell his undivided interest and make a good title, subject to partnership debts.
Levi Stern sold his undivided interest to the appellant. At the August term of the District Court for 1866, Tufts & McMillen recovered a judgment in Victoria county, where the property is situated, on a partnership debt against Samuel Alexander; and it appears that the court directed execution against the. individual property of Alexander, and also against the property of Levi Stern & Co., under which execution Daniel Alexander became the purchaser, and claims to hold the property, discharged of any claim of the appellant derived from Levi Stern.
Had the suit of Tufts & McMillen been against the firm of Levi Stern & Co., and judgment rendered against them, the execution would have been regular, and the purchaser would have acquired title to the whole property; but this was not the case. The suit was not against the firm, nor was the judgment; and a purchaser under the execution could not acquire any greater interest than that held by Samuel Alexander, if, indeed, he acquired any interest under so irregular a proceeding.
Whatever interest the appellant may have in this property subject to the debts of Levi Stern & Co. is not affected by the sale and deed of the sheriff to Daniel Alexander.
We think the judgment of the District Court is correct, and is therefore affirmed.
October 28, 1873.
Hancock, West & North, for rehearing; which was granted.