Spurr v. Russell

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Spurr v. Russell

59 N.H. 338

DecidedDecember 5, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 59 N.H. 338 (Spurr v. Russell) 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

Spurr v. Russell, 59 N.H. 338 (N.H. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Dob, C. J.

By a rule well settled in this state, the sale by O. K. Russell of his partnership interest, and the introduction of Fellows, his vendee, as his successor in the firm, did not destroy the priority of the plaintiffs’ light to payment of their debt out of the property of the original firm of O. K. Russell & Son to the extent of the son’s interest in that property. If by this rule the rights of the parties are not fully adjusted, they can be heard again.

Case discharged.

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Dob, C. J.

By a rule well settled in this state, the sale by O. K. Russell of his partnership interest, and the introduction of Fellows, his vendee, as his successor in the firm, did not destroy the priority of the plaintiffs’ light to payment of their debt out of the property of the original firm of O. K. Russell & Son to the extent of the son’s interest in that property. If by this rule the rights of the parties are not fully adjusted, they can be heard again.

Case discharged.

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.H. 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spurr-v-russell-nh-1879.