From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haynes v. Brooks

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 26, 1889
22 N.E. 1083 (N.Y. 1889)

Opinion

Argued October 24, 1889

Decided November 26, 1889

George W. Van Slyck for appellants. F.A. Paddock for respondents.



A sole surviving partner can, without the assent of the representatives of the deceased partner, make a valid general preferential assignment of the property which belonged to the firm for the benefit of its creditors. ( Williams v. Whedon, 109 N.Y. 333.) The provision in the assignment which devotes the individual property of John I. Brooks to the payment of the creditors of the firm is valid. ( Crook v. Rindskopf, 105 N.Y. 476. )

The plaintiffs assert that the assignment devotes property which belonged to the firm to the payment of the individual debts of John I. Brooks, and is, for that reason, void. Assuming the rule laid down in Wilson v. Robertson ( 21 N.Y. 587) to be applicable to an assignment executed by a surviving partner under the circumstances disclosed in this record, the plaintiffs are not in a position in this action to avail themselves of this objection. It is the creditors of the firm who are injured by the provision which devotes firm property to the payment of individual creditors. The plaintiffs are the creditors of John I. Brooks, and became such with knowledge of the death of Edward C. Brooks. They are not defrauded, nor hindered, nor delayed in law or in fact by the application of firm property to the payment of the creditors of John I. Brooks, but are benefited.

A judgment setting aside the assignment, as to these plaintiffs, would afford them no remedy against the firm property, and they cannot prosecute this action for the sole benefit of the creditors of the firm who do not complain. ( Bostwick v. Menck, 40 N.Y. 383; Royer Wheel Company v Fielding, 101 id. 510; Crook v. Rindskopf, 105 id. 476; Williams v. Whedon, 109 id. 333, 338.)

The plaintiff's debt was contracted by John I. Brooks as surviving partner of the firm, though in law it is his individual debt, and it is very clear that their claim was intended to be, and is, embraced within the debts directed by the fourth clause to be paid by the assignees.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Haynes v. Brooks

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 26, 1889
22 N.E. 1083 (N.Y. 1889)
Case details for

Haynes v. Brooks

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE A. HAYNES et al., Appellants, v . JOHN I. BROOKS et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 26, 1889

Citations

22 N.E. 1083 (N.Y. 1889)
22 N.E. 1083
27 N.Y. St. Rptr. 478

Citing Cases

In re Dunn

In re Salladay (D.C.) 22 F.2d 300. Under the laws of the state of New York, a sole surviving partner may file…

Hewitt v. Hayes

An allowance may be made to his widow from the firm assets as from his own personal estate, even though the…