Willis Coal & Mining Co. v. Furstenfeld

• Decision Date: 06 June 1910
• Citation: 129 S.W. 1028,146 Mo. App. 279
• Parties: WILLIS COAL & MINING CO. v. FURSTENFELD et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

129 S.W. 1028

146 Mo. App. 279

WILLIS COAL & MINING CO. v. FURSTENFELD et al.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 6, 1910.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1910.

Motion to Transfer to Supreme Court Overruled July 7, 1910.

1. PARTNERSHIP (§ 200)—ACTION AGAINST— SALE OF PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY—PARTIES.

In an action against a partnership for goods sold, where the partnership property had been subsequently sold to one of the partners and his wife, it was not error to refuse the wife's application to be made a party, since it was not a suit to establish an equitable lien on the partnership property.

2. PARTNERSHIP (§ 279) — DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP—LIABILITY FOR DEBTS.

The dissolution of a partnership, by a sale of the partnership property to one of the partners and his wife, would not relieve the purchasing partner from liability for firm debts.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Action by the Willis Coal & Mining Company against Christian Furstenfeld, Valentine Furstenfeld, and Louis Furstenfeld, partners doing business as O. Furstenfeld & Sons, or Furstenfeld & Sons. Judgment for plaintiff, and Valentine Furstenfeld alone appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. S. Grover, for appellant. Dawson & Garvin, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

This is an action against defendants, sued as a copartnership, for coal sold and delivered at the special instance and request of defendants. The petition, after alleging that the plaintiff is a business corporation organized under the laws of Missouri, alleges that the defendants named were copartners, and dealt in coal and fuel and other merchandise, under the firm name and style of C. Furstenfeld & Sons; that during the years of 1901 to 1906 the plaintiff sold to the defendants coal; and that the defendants are indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $617.23 therefor. It stands admitted between the years 1901 and 1906 the defendants were partners, as alleged in the plaintiff's petition, and that in January, 1906, two of the defendants sold their interest in the partnership business to the appellant herein, who was the other member of the firm at that time. The two defendants who had sold their interests to the appellant permitted judgment to go against them by default; but the appellant filed an answer, alleging that on the 2d day of January, 1906, he and his wife purchased from the other defendants all the business and property of the copartnership, and that the two defendants so selling released the...