Law of Torts or Private Wrongs Book

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 Excerpt: ... it is held that such persons cannot maintain an action of trespass qu. clans, jointly against a person who forcibly enters the storehouse and seizes the goods. McPhcrson v. Pemberton, 1 Jones, 378. An action lies against one, who fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter into a general copartnership, with one who was the insolvent debtor of the defendant; and afterwards induced the copartners to assume all the debts due him from the insolvent, and then seized the plaintiff's property, in satisfaction of the debts. Bean v. Bean, 12 Mass. 20. If after the dissolution of a partnership, having outstanding debts, an insolvent partner sells a part of the partnership property, for the purpose of raising money to pay his individual debts, and the purchaser, at the time of the purchase, has full knowledge of the insolvency of such partner, and of his object in making the sale; the sale is fraudulent and void. Geortner v. The Trustees, &c. 2 Barb. 625. In general, one partner may be held responsible for the wrongful act of another, if connected with the partnership business. The managing partner of a mining copartnership refused to deliver up oro belonging to the former tenants of the mine, on the ground that it was partnership property, and there was subsequently a notice by the attorney for the defendants, offering to deliver up tools that were in the same building with the ore, but the notice was silent as to the ore. Held, evidence of conversion by all the partners. Llovd v. Bcllis, 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 545. So, to support trover for notes against a partnership, it is only necessary to show that the conversion complained of was a partnership transaction. St. John v. O'Connel, 7 Port. 466. And, in trover, the allegation that the defendants were partners is ...