Case Name: In re GOEDDE et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1873
Citations: 10 F. Cas. 524
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re GOEDDE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 10
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
Case No. 6,600.
In re GOEDDE et al.
[6 N. B. R. 295.]
Circuit Court, S. D. Illinois.
1873.
PARTNERSHIP—FIRM AND INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS —Bankruptcy of Partner.
A. and B. were copartners in trade, but A. owned most all of the property put into the firm, in his own individual right, and at the time of the formation of the partnership was in debt to some extent. This property was all he was worth and his individual debts were contracted on the strength of this property. The firm carried on business several years, when the bulk of copartnership property was sold out under a deed of trust given by the firm to secure firm indebtedness, .but no formal dissolution took place. A short time after-wards A. filed his voluntary petition in bankruptcy; at this time the copartnership assets consisted of some personal property and a few outstanding accounts from which the assignee realized nothing. Bdd, that the individual and copartnership creditors should share equally.
[Cited in Re Rice, Case No. 11,750.]
The assignee and Pink & Nasse agree that the following is a statement of the facts relating to the bankrupt and his estate, and business connections pertinent to the application of Pink & Nasse for a distribution of the estate to the creditors pari' passu as their claims have been proved: On the;-day of May, eighteen hundred and- sixty-five, Bernard Goedde and George Scheuneberg became copartners in business under the name of Goedde & Co., for .the purpose of carrying on the flouring business. At this time, Bernard Goedde individually was, and until the bankruptcy, remained the owner of the property from which the moneys now •in question were realised by the assignee. This was all he was worth at the time his individual debts were contracted, and they were contracted on the strength of this property. Most of the individual debts existed at the time of the formation of the copart-nership. The firm continued to do business till January, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, when embarrassments of a financial character led to a partial stoppage, that is to say, they ceased to manufacture flour, but the copartnership was never dissolved otherwise than as may result in law from the facts here stated. On the second of May, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, the bulk of the copartnership property was sold out under a deed of trust given by the firm to secure firm indebtedness other than that of Pink & Nasse. On the twenty-second of May, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, these proceedings began, upon the voluntary petition-of Bernard Goedde. No proceedings by or against George Scheuneberg were had by copartnership or other' creditors. At the date of the bankruptcy proceedings, the co^ partnership assets consisted of some personal property and a few outstanding accounts, both of small value. Prom them the as-signee has-realized nothing. Scheuneberg at the date of the bankruptcy, had become and was insolvent, on account of the copartnership indebtedness, and so remains. He owed some individual debts, and had little individual property. The copartnership creditors, when their debts were contracted, knew of the • ownership by Goedde of the individual property before referred to. Scheuneberg has resided during all the tíme mentioned in the Southern district of Illinois. The individual creditors who have proved their debts are, John B. Livingstone, Clemens Charles ' Goedde and Clemens Goedde. The copartnership creditors who have proved their debts'are, John Trendly, administrator, Sebastian Pfeiffer, deceased, and Pink & Nasse.
On the foregoing statement of facts, the assignee contended that the individual creditors were entitled to be paid in full, and that only the surplus remaining should be divided among the copartnership creditors. The district court ordered a dividend to be declared, in which the individual and co-partnership creditors should share equally. The question, on the application of the individual creditors, was certified to the circuit court for said district for review, and was submitted to the circuit court for review, as on petition, setting forth the facts, with the agreement that the order of the court below might be reversed or affirmed, as the court should see proper.
Lucien Eaton, for individual creditors.
E. P. Johnson, for copartnership creditors.

Opinion:
DRUMMOND, Circuit Judge.
It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court below be affirmed.