Court Opinion

ID: 8637003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:46:54.458005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:57.793221
License: Public Domain

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.
There is a difficulty- in this case, which lies at the threshold of Fisher's right to recover. The agreement of the 26th of February. 1867, whatever effect it may have had to dissolve the partnership between Shepard and Cochran, as to future business and debts to be contracted thereafter, had no such effect as respected the partnership property in which Cochran theretofore had an interest, or as respected the partnership debts named in that agreement, or as respected proceedings under the bankruptcy act to affect such partnership property. The agreement expressly declares, that there is to be no dissolution of the partnership, so far as it may be necessary to continue the same for the final liquidation and settlement of the business thereof; and the transfer to Shepard of Cochran’s interest in the property of the firm is expressly made subject, by the agreement, to the trust, that Shepard is to apply, the property, and the proceeds thereof, to the payment of the partnership debts. The case is not one where the transfer of the interest of the retiring partner in the imrtnership property is absolute, and the remaining partner merely agrees to pay and assumes the debts of the partnership, as was done in Robb v. Mudge, 14 Gray, 334. In the present case, Cochran took from Shepard an express agreement that the partnership property assigned, and its proceeds, should be applied by Shepard to pay the partnership debts, and the agreement made by Shepard was to pay those debts with that property. Therefore, as respected Cochran and the creditors of the firm, there was no dissolution of the partnership, and no such transfer to Shepard as would make the property his individual property, until and unless the partnership debts were first paid. This being so, there must be an adjudication of bankruptcy against the partners composing the firm, and an assignee must be appointed in such a proceeding, before any step can be taken to reach in bankruptcy the partnership assets. Shepard alone has been adjudged a bankrupt. As there are partnership assets, the partnership continues, as respects proceedings in bankruptcy. Under-the provisions of section 30 of the act, the copartnership property cannot be taken and administered by the bankruptcy court, unless all the persons who have an interest, as copartners in such property, are adjudged bankrupt. In order to reach such property, it is necessary, under section 30, that Fisher shall have been appointed assignee in a proceeding against all of such copartners. He is only the assignee of the individual and separate estate of Shepard, in a proceeding in bankruptcy against Shepard alone. He shows, therefore, no title to call Stout, or any one else, to account in respect of the property which purported to have been assigned by Cochran to Shepard, and by Shepard to Stout.
These views dispose of the ease, without reference to any of the other questions raised or discussed. It is not necessary to decide whether any other persons than Shepard and Cochran were members of the firm, as. on the status of the partnership property. as left by the agreement between Shepard and Cochran, it is immaterial whether or not there were other partners in the firm. The petition must be dismissed, with costs.