« السابقةمتابعة »
492 481 554 101
83 394 220 342 390 110 236 130 331 34 64 279 336
L. La Croix v. County Commissioners,
N. Neuner, State v.
232 Newberry v. Hinman,
130 New Britain (City of,) N. York, New Haven and Hartford R. R. Co. v.
40 New Haven (City of,) Healey v.
394 New Haven and Northampton Co., Allen v.
243 New York and New England R. R. Co., Kane v.
139 New York, New Haven and Hartford R. R. Co. v. City of New Britain,
40 Norwich (City of,) Burdick v.
Rohrmayer, Flannery v.
27 45 105 404 251
48 134 580
83 576 404
87 376 181
87 101 232 376 429 155
45 339 229
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.
“ 589, last line but one-for two read three. 48,“ 398, ninth line-for H. S. Pardee read H. E. Pardee.
590, sixth line-for 1857 read 1851.
SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
DISTRICT OF HARTFORD,
EMBRACING THE COUNTIES OF
HARTFORD, WINDHAM, LITCHFIELD, MIDDLESEX
HELD ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF JANUARY, 1881.
[Continued from the last volume.]
PARK, C. J., CARPENTER, PARDEE, LOOMIS AND
FRANCES C. BLODGETT AND OTHERS vs. 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. Held1. 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.