Case Name: Norris & Brother vs. T. O. P. Vernon & R. C. Poole
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1854-12
Citations: 8 Rich. 13
Docket Number: 
Parties: Norris & Brother vs. T. O. P. Vernon & R. C. Poole.
Judges: O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, and G-lover, JJ., concurring.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
Norris & Brother vs. T. O. P. Vernon & R. C. Poole.
An assignment by one partner of Ms interest in the hooks of the firm is valid, at law, against the creditors of the firm.
BEEOBE O’NEALL, J., AT SPABTANBUBG, AUGUST, EXTRA TERM, 1854.
The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows :
“ The plaintiffs were creditors of Morgan & Cothran. They sued out a writ of attachment against J. B. Morgan, or against the firm, and the defendants, as in possession of assets received from J. B. Morgan, were sued as garnishees. They returned that they were in possession of the books of Morgan & Cothran, under an assignment made to them, bona fide, by J. B. Morgan, of his interest in the same, one-half: the other half was claimed by J. R. Bowden, under an assignment to him by Cothran.
“ The plaintiffs contended that the assignment to the defendants was void. I did not think so. It might be, I thought, in another forum, that the defendants might be compelled to account - to • the.. plaintiffs, as co-partnership creditors, for the assets of the firm, but certainly at law the assignment was good. The jury, accordingly, found for the defendants.”
The plaintiffs appealed, and now moved this Court for a new trial on the ground, because'’ the partnership effects of Morgan & Cothran are not subject in law-to.the payment of the individual debts of J. B. Morgan; nor can Morgan’s assignment make them so, until after all the debts and liabilities of the firm of Morgan & Cothran are paid, and the taking of the said effects was tortious and illegal.
Thompson, Ohoiee, for the motion.
Bean, Trimmier, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The decision below has the concurrence of this Court, and the reasons assigned in Wilson & Co. vs. Bowden are sufficient for its vindication.
The motion is dismissed.
O'Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, and G-lover, JJ., concurring.
Munro, J., absent from indisposition.
Motion dismissed.
Ante, p. 0.