Citation Numbers: 25 Neb. 260
Judges: Maxwell, Other
Filed Date: 7/15/1888
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/20/2022
This is an action .to subject the individual property of the members of a firm to the payment of a partnership debt. The defendants are husband and wife. It is alleged in the petition “that on the 13th day of October, 1882, and for a long time prior thereto and thereafter,, defendants were copartners, doing business under the firm-name and style of W. Z. Taylor & Co., Culbertson, Hitchcock county, Nebraska.
“At the October term, 1886, of the district court of Hitchcock county, Nebraska, the plaintiffs recovered judg
“On the 29th day of November, 1886,an execution was duly issued on said judgment against said copartners, and delivered to the sheriff of said county, commanding him to levy the same upon the goods and chattels of said defendants, and for want of the same, upon the lands and-tenements belonging to them, which execution, on the 27th day of December, 1886, was returned wholly unsatisfied; that said firm have no property out of which to collect •said judgment, or any part thereof.”
The defendants, in their answer, admit the partnership; admit the recovery of a judgment as alleged, and the return of an execution thereon unsatisfied, but “ deny that said firm has no property out of which to collect said judgment or any part thereof. As a defense to this action, defendants allege the facts to be, that there is full and sufficient amount of property and credits owned by said firm of W. Z. Taylor & Co. out of which plaintiff can make and collect the whole amount of said judgment and costs.”
On the trial of the cause the court found the facts as follows:
“ That on Nov. 29, 1887, an execution was issued on said judgment against said copartnership, and directed to the sheriff of said county, which execution was, on the 27th day of December; 1886, returned wholly unsatisfied; that said copartnership has no property out of which to collect said judgment or any part thereof.” The court rendered judgment, subjecting the individual property of the members of the firm to the payment of the judgment.
It will be observed that the only question is, whether or not there was sufficient firm property on which to levy to satisfy the judgment. Mr. Taylor testified as a witness on behalf of the firm, and stated that at the time of the levy the firm possessed notes and accounts of the nominal
Judgment affirmed.