Fowle v. Torrey
| Decision Date | 28 June 1881 |
| Citation | 131 Mass. 289 |
| Parties | Henrietta Fowle v. Elbridge Torrey |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed February 28, 1880, alleging that the plaintiff is the wife of George E. Fowle, who, with the defendant, formed a copartnership under the style of Fowle Torrey & Company, as dealers in carpets in Boston; that she deposited or lent to said firm different sums of money all from her separate estate, at different times, from September 1, 1869, until the dissolution thereof, taking generally, at the times of such loans, the notes or receipts of the firm for the money, the firm promising to pay her back the same, or any portion thereof, on demand, with interest thereon at eight per cent per annum; that an account of said dealings with the firm, including debits, credits and interest, up to April 27, 1876, was furnished by the defendant to the plaintiff, showing a balance due to her on that date of $ 2881.79, and interest from June 30, 1875 which she believes to be correct; that, at the dissolution of the firm, the defendant took all the assets thereof, which he told the plaintiff were largely in excess of the liabilities that she is informed that all the liabilities of the firm, excepting her claim, have been paid; that, after the dissolution of the firm, she requested the defendant to pay her claim; that he admitted his liability to pay her claim, and at no time refused to pay the same, and requested her to give her notes to George E. Fowle for the purposes of payment, which she did, believing that the defendant would pay them; that subsequently the defendant said he had the notes, that they had been paid and allowed in his settlement with George E. Fowle, who was largely indebted to the firm and the defendant individually, and that all the defendant's liability to the plaintiff had been discharged by George E. Fowle, who had appropriated the money due to the plaintiff in the settlement of his liability to the defendant, all of which was without the plaintiff's consent or knowledge; and that the plaintiff has since repeatedly demanded of the defendant her notes, or the payment of her claim; which he refuses, on the ground that he has settled and paid the same to George E. Fowle, and is under no liability to the plaintiff.
The prayer of the bill was that the defendant might be ordered to state a full and correct account of the moneys received by him, either alone or as a member of the firm of Fowle, Torrey & Company, from the plaintiff; and that he be ordered to pay the amount due, with interest, to the plaintiff; and for general relief.
An amendment of the bill, filed December 24, 1880, alleged that the plaintiff was informed and believed that, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fusco v. Rocky Mountain I Investments Ltd. Partnership
...conducted as a general partnership, under the common law and under c. 108A, it is necessary to sue all the partners. See Fowle v. Torrey, 131 Mass. 289, 291 (1881). A limited partnership is markedly different. All the general partners, as we have noted, are personally liable for the debts o......
-
Shapira v. Budish
...54 N. E. 846. With certain exceptions not here material, all partners must be parties to a suit involving partnership rights. Fowle v. Torrey, 131 Mass. 289. In the matter of bringing or maintaining suit, an assignee of a partner's interest in a partnership could stand in no better position......
-
Emerson v. National Cylinder Gas Company
...not being a legal entity, this procedure would have been a nullity. Donovan v. Danielson, 244 Mass. 432, 138 N.E. 811. cf. Fowle v. Torrey, 131 Mass. 289. However, as the action is brought to enforce a federal substantive right, and does not depend upon diversity jurisdiction plaintiff's pr......
- Fowle v. Torrey