Schmidt v. Ellis

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Schmidt v. Ellis

38 A. 382, 69 N.H. 98

DecidedDecember 5, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A. 382 (Schmidt v. Ellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmidt v. Ellis, 38 A. 382, 69 N.H. 98 (N.H. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, C. J.

The statute providing that “ the insolvency of a partnership shall render each partner insolvent within the meaning of this chapter, and his property . . . shall pass to the messenger and assignee appointed in the partnership proceedings” (P. S., c. 201, s. 46) is applicable to such partners only as reside in the state. The insolvency court has no jurisdiction of non-resident debtors. P. S., c. 201, ss. 6, 42; Ayer v. Weeks, 65 N. H. 248; Smith v. Stanley, 67 N. H. 328; Smith v. Hammond, 68 N. H. 363. Tirrell individually and his private property are not affected by the decree. But his exemption from the operation of the law does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction over Ellis, his individual property, and the partnership property in his possession. No more does the circumstance that Tirrell’s separate property cannot be here administered and distributed among his creditors afford any reason why the property of Ellis and of the firm should be “screened from the operation of the insolvent.law.” McDaniel v. King, 5 Cush. 469, 476.

Appeal dismissed.

All concurred.

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

Carpenter, C. J.

The statute providing that “ the insolvency of a partnership shall render each partner insolvent within the meaning of this chapter, and his property . . . shall pass to the messenger and assignee appointed in the partnership proceedings” (P. S., c. 201, s. 46) is applicable to such partners only as reside in the state. The insolvency court has no jurisdiction of non-resident debtors. P. S., c. 201, ss. 6, 42; Ayer v. Weeks, 65 N. H. 248; Smith v. Stanley, 67 N. H. 328; Smith v. Hammond, 68 N. H. 363. Tirrell individually and his private property are not affected by the decree. But his exemption from the operation of the law does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction over Ellis, his individual property, and the partnership property in his possession. No more does the circumstance that Tirrell’s separate property cannot be here administered and distributed among his creditors afford any reason why the property of Ellis and of the firm should be “screened from the operation of the insolvent.law.” McDaniel v. King, 5 Cush. 469, 476.

Appeal dismissed.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A. 382, 69 N.H. 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-ellis-nh-1896.