Kane v. New York and New England R. R. Co., Keney, Goodwin v. Kelly v. Wiard, King, Filley v. Kingsley v. Johnson, L. La Croix v. County Commissioners, New Britain (City of,) N. York, New Haven and Hartford R. R. Co. v. New Haven (City of,) Healey v. New Haven and Northampton Co., Allen v. New York and New England R. R. Co., Kane v. 130 . New York, New Haven and Hartford R. R. Co. v. City of Ꭼ Ꭱ Ꭱ Ꭺ Ꭲ Ꭺ . P. 110, first line of head note-for 1775 read 1875. "403, add to the last line-" except LOOMIS, J., who dissented. Vol. 29, p. 577, last line-for 688 read 588. 66 "589, last line but one-for two read three. 48,"398, ninth line-for H. S. Pardee read H. E. Pardee. 66 66 SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, EMBRACING THE COUNTIES OF HARTFORD, WINDHAM, LITCHFIELD, MIDDLESEX HELD ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF JANUARY, 1881. Present PARK, C. J., CARPENTER, PARDEE, LOOMIS AND FRANCES C. BLODGETT AND OTHERS v8. THE AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS. A copartnership of which B had for several years been the senior member and his son and son-in-law the other members, was reorganized for the prosecution of the same business under partnership articles in which it was provided that the partnership should not be dissolved by the death of B, but that his executor should act in his stead in the performance of his stipulations; that each partner should be credited by the new firm with the amount of capital he had already put in, with interest at seven per cent. in B's favor and at six per cent. in favor of the others; that the profits should be taken by the other partners, and that as fast as capital could be spared it should be used to reduce by payments the amount B had in the concern. B died soon after, leaving a will in which he disposed of his property, but in which he made no further provision with regard to the partnership. The remaining members of the firm, one of whom was his executor, continued the business as before, and the firm finally failed. Held 1. That B's estate was liable for debts of the partnership contracted after his death. 2. That this liability was not limited to the amount that he had put into the partnership, but extended to his whole estate. VOL. XLIX.-2. |