|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HALL v. McPHERSON. 529
of five per cent, to the trustees for all sums collected by them by
suit as attorneys at law. Without any further controversy as to the
rights of the creditors or parties, the case seems to have been, on
the 28th of September, 1836, finally closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HALL t;. McPHERSON.
On the filing of a bill for an injunction the defendant may instantly |jat in hit
answer, so as thereby to prevent the granting of an injunction as prayed. —A
party may be compelled, in a summary way, to pay the costs due to a commis-
sioner.
As by a decree to account the defendant becomes an actor, the plaintiff cannot
thereafter dismiss his bill without notice to the defendant by a rule further pro-
ceedings. —A person who has been finally discharged under the insolvent law
cannot sue or be sued in relation to any property so transferred to his trustee for
the benefit of his creditors. —A discharge under the insolvent law of a party to a
pending suit, does not operate as an abatement; but the suit becoming thereby
defective, the defect must be removed before the suit can be allowed to proceed.
THIS bill was filed on the 21st of April, 1826, by Thomas L
Hall j administrator of Thomas Tongue, against Thomas T. McPher-
son. It states, that on the first of July, 1822, a partnership was
formed under the firm of Tongue & McPherson, between the intes-
tate of the plaintiff and the defendant, which was carried on until
the first of November, 1825; of the profits of which Tongue was
to have two-thirds and McPherson one-third. That immediately
on the dissolution of this firm they entered into another co-part-
nership, the profits of which they were to share equally under
the firm of Thomas T. McPherson & Co. which continued until
Tongue's death; which happened on the 2d of January, 1826.
After which letters of administration on his estate were granted to
this plaintiff. That both of these firms were largely indebted;
that the stock of goods remaining on hand, and in the possession
of the defendant, was very considerable; which, with the debts
due to them, if properly managed, would be sufficient to satisfy all
the claims against them and leave some surplus. That the defen-
dant, although frequently requested, had not exhibited to the plain-
tiff any statement of the transactions of those firms. That the
defendant, since the death of the plaintiff's intestate, had continued
to carry on business, and was selling the stock of goods belonging
to the two firms without taking any inventory thereof; or in any
67 v. 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
