|
|
|
|
|
|
|
530 HALL v. McPHERSON.
other manner ascertaining the amount, quantity, or value of the
partnership effects. That the defendant has no property; except
his interest in those co-partnerships; and his conduct had been
such as to hazard the interests of those joint concerns, and was
calculated to injure the estate of the plaintiff's intestate, and to
expose it to loss and waste; and that the defendant's selling the
-partnership property and effects at retail was improper, because it
should be sold at public sale.
The bill then prayed for an account; the plaintiff thereby offer-
ing to admit the defendant as a creditor of the estate of his intes-
tate for whatever might appear to be due to him from those joint
concerns; for general relief; and for an injunction commanding
the defendant to refrain and surcease from selling the goods, pro-
perty, and effects belonging to either of the co-partnerships, and
also from collecting and receiving any of the debts due and owing
thereto, &c.
On the same day the defendant put in his answer, in which he
admitted, that the two partnerships had been formed and carried
on; and were largely indebted as stated: that the goods which
came to his possession as surviving partner, and were then on
hand, would amount, if sold at retail upon short credit, to about
$2, 000; but, if forced into market, and sold at auction for cash,
would not command any price near their original cost. That
without great care and diligence in winding up the two joint con-
cerns, their effects would not be sufficient to meet the claims
against them: that the stock of goods on hand was the only effec-
tual means which the defendant had, to meet the urgent demands
made against him as surviving partner; that, since the death of
the plaintiff's intestate, this defendant had disposed of a part of the
joint effects in the best possible manner, and applied the proceeds
in satisfaction of the claims against them. That he had in all
things done his best to preserve the interests of the two partner-
ships; and the plaintiff's allegations, that he had put those inte-
rests at hazard, and had no other property, were false. That
this defendant was never requested by the plaintiff to furnish him
with a statement of the transactions of the firms; on the con-
trary, the plaintiff had always had free access to the books of
the concerns, and the defendant had always been ready and will-
ing to give any information on the subject within his power; that
an inventory of the goods on hand had bean taken a short time
before the death of the plaintiff's intestate, and the amount par-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
