Burns & Smucker v. Harris & Allen

67 N.C. 140
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1872·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

Reade, J.

The motion of O. L. Harris, assignee in bankruptcy of Harris & Allen, to be made party defendant, is allowed, but we do not adjudicate any conflicting claims between the assignee and the defendants, as the defendants have no notice.

One of two or more partners cannot have a portion of the partnership effects set apart to him, as his personal property exemption, without the consent of the other partner or partners ; because the property is not his. But if the other partner or partners consent, then it may be done. The creditors of the firm cannot object, because they no more have a lien upon the partnership effects for their debts, than creditors of an individual have upon his effects. In our case fhe partners did assent.

It is proper to say, that the counsel for the plaintiffs in this case were misled by a misprint, in the opinion of this Court, when this case was before us heretofore, (66 N. C. R.) Sufficient ” is printed for “ ¿^sufficient.”

There is error. Judgment reversed, and judgment here that the property levied on be discharged from the levy, and the money in the hands of the clerk or other person will be paid over to the defendant. And if the money under the order of the Court below has been paid over to the plaintiffs, there will be judgment in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs for the amount. And if the counsel do not agree, the clerk will ascertain the facts.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Burns & Smucker v. Harris & Allen, 67 N.C. 140 (N.C. 1872).

67 N.C. 140 (Burns & Smucker v. Harris & Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Aurora Hardware Co.
287 F. 164 (E.D. North Carolina, 1923)
Farmer v. . Head
95 S.E. 567 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
In re Seabolt
113 F. 766 (W.D. North Carolina, 1902)
In re Wilson
101 F. 571 (E.D. North Carolina, 1900)
In re Grimes
94 F. 800 (W.D. North Carolina, 1899)
In re Stevenson
93 F. 789 (E.D. North Carolina, 1899)
In re Camp
91 F. 745 (N.D. Georgia, 1899)
Hart v. Hiatt
48 S.W. 1038 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1899)
Richardson v. . Redd
24 S.E. 420 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
McMillan v. . Williams
13 S.E. 764 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
Cowan v. Their Creditors
19 P. 755 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Stout v. . McNeill
3 S.E. 915 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1887)
State Ex Rel. Scott & Burton v. Kenan
94 N.C. 296 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)
O'Gorman v. Fink
15 N.W. 771 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1883)
Bruff, Faulkner & Co. v. Stern & Bro.
81 N.C. 183 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1879)
In re Corbett
6 F. Cas. 528 (D. Nevada, 1878)
In re Bjornstad
3 F. Cas. 488 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1878)
Newton v. Summey
59 Ga. 397 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1877)
Harris v. Visscher
57 Ga. 229 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1876)
In re Handlin
11 F. Cas. 421 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas, 1875)