Marvin v. Trumbull

Ohio Supreme Court

Marvin v. Trumbull

1 Wright 386, 1 Ohio Ch. 386

DecidedAugust 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 386 (Marvin v. Trumbull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marvin v. Trumbull, 1 Wright 386, 1 Ohio Ch. 386 (Ohio 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

The rule applicable to real estate purchased and held as partnership property, would let in a creditor of the firm upon the land, in preference to a creditor of an individual partner, with notice. Possibly, if we should consider the evidence before ..388] *the court in the original cause, our conclusions might be diffrent from those the court came to which heard the cause; and, on hearing where the proof made out a good case, differing from the one set forth in the bill, might have permitted an amendment to meet the case; but, on a bill of review, where we act as a court of error, our powers are circumscribed. The question now is, whether, upon the case which the record exhibits, as made in the pleadings and decree, the court rendering the decree have erred. Unless the evidence is necessarily a part of the record, we cannot look at it on ' a bill of review. There is some difference of opinion among the members of the court on this point; but we agree that where the .case on the record is such as to warrant the decree, though the evidence, if looked at, might sustain a contrary decree, we cannot open the decree, or allow an amendment. In this case, it does not appear in the decree, or in the record, that the purchase, was made with partnership funds, or for its use. We should doubt the propriety of showing favor to such a claim as the complainant’s, who dissolved the partnership without securing his own interest. At any rate, the error, if any, is not very apparent, and we are not disposed .to interfere.

The bill is dismissed.

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

BY THE COURT.

The rule applicable to real estate purchased and held as partnership property, would let in a creditor of the firm upon the land, in preference to a creditor of an individual partner, with notice. Possibly, if we should consider the evidence before ..388] *the court in the original cause, our conclusions might be diffrent from those the court came to which heard the cause; and, on hearing where the proof made out a good case, differing from the one set forth in the bill, might have permitted an amendment to meet the case; but, on a bill of review, where we act as a court of error, our powers are circumscribed. The question now is, whether, upon the case which the record exhibits, as made in the pleadings and decree, the court rendering the decree have erred. Unless the evidence is necessarily a part of the record, we cannot look at it on ' a bill of review. There is some difference of opinion among the members of the court on this point; but we agree that where the .case on the record is such as to warrant the decree, though the evidence, if looked at, might sustain a contrary decree, we cannot open the decree, or allow an amendment. In this case, it does not appear in the decree, or in the record, that the purchase, was made with partnership funds, or for its use. We should doubt the propriety of showing favor to such a claim as the complainant’s, who dissolved the partnership without securing his own interest. At any rate, the error, if any, is not very apparent, and we are not disposed .to interfere.

The bill is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 386, 1 Ohio Ch. 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marvin-v-trumbull-ohio-1833.