Fisk v. Herrick

6 Mass. 271
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 6 Mass. 271 (Fisk v. Herrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fisk v. Herrick, 6 Mass. 271 (Mass. 1810).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have several times decided that a debt due to a partnership is not necessarily goods, effects, or credits, of either of the partners. Before either partner can rightfully claim to his own use, or for the payment of his own debts, any of the partnership effects, the partnership must be solvent, and he must not be a debtor to it.

To ascertain these facts, a creditor who wishes to apply to the payment of his debt a debt due to the partnership, by this mode of attachment, ought also to summon as a trustee one of [ * 272 ] the partners, as well knowing the state of * the affairs of, the partnership; and if, on his examination, it shall appear that the principal has an interest in the partnership effects after their debts are all paid, that interest may be considered as effects or credits of the principal, and may be secured by the attachment.

In this case, no process against the other partner was issued ; and because Willet and Bullard are indebted to the partnership, we cannot conclude that they have effects of one of the partners, to be applied to the payment of his private debts. The trustees must therefore be discharged.

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

Related

Liverpool, Brazil & River Platte Navigation Co. v. Agar & Lelong
14 F. 615 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1882)
Seaton v. Brooking
1 White & W. 585 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1881)
Peoples' Bank v. Shryock
48 Md. 427 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1878)
Parker v. Wright
66 Me. 392 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1877)
Everett v. Bolles
6 Haw. 153 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1875)
Berry v. Harris
22 Md. 30 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1864)
Linford v. Linford
28 N.J.L. 113 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1859)
Robinson v. Furbush
34 Me. 509 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1852)
Thompson v. Lewis
34 Me. 167 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1852)
French v. Rogers
16 N.H. 177 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1844)
Phillips v. Cook
24 Wend. 388 (New York Supreme Court, 1840)
Winston v. Ewing
1 Ala. 129 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1840)
Hawes v. Inhabitants of Waltham
35 Mass. 451 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1837)
Barker v. President of Hartford Bank
9 Conn. 415 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1833)
President v. Wilkins
9 Me. 28 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1832)
Mansfield v. Blaisdell
5 N.H. 190 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1830)
Thorndike v. De Wolf
23 Mass. 120 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1828)
Church v. Knox
2 Conn. 514 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1818)
Phillips v. Bridge
11 Mass. 242 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1814)
Upham v. Naylor
9 Mass. 490 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Mass. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisk-v-herrick-mass-1810.