Roger Williams Nat. Bank v. Hall
| Decision Date | 29 November 1893 |
| Citation | 35 N.E. 666,160 Mass. 171 |
| Parties | ROGER WILLIAMS NAT. BANK v. HALL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William A. Morgan and Frank L. Tinkham, for appellants.
Edmund H. Bennett, for appellee.
The question in this case is whether the holder of a partnership note, made payable to one partner, and indorsed by him to the holder, can prove it in insolvency against the estates both of the firm and of the indorsing partner, before any dividend is declared on either. The statute is silent. Intimations in favor of the right of double proof are to be found in Borden v. Cuyler, 10 Cush. 476, 477, and in Mead v. Bank, 6 Blatchf. 180, and decisions in Re Farnum, 6 Law Rep. 21, (by Judge Sprague,) and Ex parte Nason, 70 Me. 363. The United States bankrupt act of 1867, § 21, (Rev.St.U.S. § 5074,) is construed to allow the right in terms. Emery v. Bank, 3 Cliff. 507, collecting the cases, and repeating some of the general arguments at length. Formerly an arbitrary rule was worked out by degrees in England, that the creditor must elect. Ex parte Rowlandson, 3 P. Wms. 405; Ex parte Moult, Bankr.Cas.Mont. 321; Mont. & B. 28, 1 Deac. & C. 44, 2 Deac. & C. 419; Goldsmid v. Cazenove, 7 H.L.Cas. 785, 805. But this rule, after being disapproved by the most eminent judges, has been done away with by statute in cases like the present, (Ex parte Honey, 7 Ch.App. 178.) In view of the modern decisions and the general agreement of opinion, we think it unnecessary to argue elaborately for the right of a creditor who has required two contracts, binding two distinct estates, to insist upon both. See, further, Vanuxem v. Burr, 151 Mass. 386, 388, 389, 24 N.E. 773; Turner v. Whitmore, 63 Me. 526, 528; Bank v. Jefferson, 138 Mass. 111, 113.
Decree of court of insolvency affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. International Trust Co, 122
...from his membership in the firm-a distinct and separate liability arising by reason of his personal indorsement. Roger Williams Nat. Bank v. Hall, 160 Mass. 171, 35 N. E. 666; Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank v. Meloon, 183 Mass. 66, 67, 66 N. E. 410, 97 Am. St. Rep. 416; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Mead, 21......
-
Hawkins v. Mahoney
...the partnership, and also the estate of the individual partner. This precise question was involved in the cases of Ex parte Nason and Roger v. Hall, supra, and in each the rule as double proof was maintained on principle. In the last-named case the court, after citing the authorities in sup......
-
Fourth Nat. Bank v. Mead
... ... arising from the two distinct contracts by which he had bound ... himself. Roger Williams National Bank v. Hall, 160 ... Mass. 171, 35 N.E. 666. Since the passage of the act, it ... ...
-
Hawkins v. Mahoney
...v. Bank, 7 N. B. R. 217, Fed. Cas. No. 4,446; In re Bradley, 2 Biss. 515, Fed. Cas. No. 1,772; Ex parte Nason, 70 Me. 363; Roger v. Hall, 160 Mass. 171, 35 N. E. 666. It is true, as claimed, that the federal bankrupt law of 1867 provided for double proof in certain cases; but Judge Clifford......