Burns & Smucker v. Harris & Allen
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Aurora Hardware Co. (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1923)
- Farmer v. . Head (N.C. 1918)
- In re Seabolt (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 1902)
- In re Wilson (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1900)
- Hart v. Hiatt (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory 1899)
- In re Camp (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1899)
- In re Stevenson (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1899)
- In re Grimes (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 1899)
- Richardson v. . Redd (N.C. 1896)
- McMillan v. . Williams (N.C. 1891)
- Cowan v. Their Creditors (Cal. 1888)
- Stout v. . McNeill (N.C. 1887)
- State Ex Rel. Scott & Burton v. Kenan (N.C. 1886)
- O'Gorman v. Fink (Wis. 1883)
- Bruff, Faulkner & Co. v. Stern & Bro. (N.C. 1879)
- In re Bjornstad (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 1878)
- In re Corbett (District Court, D. Nevada 1878)
- Newton v. Summey (Ga. 1877)
- Harris v. Visscher (Ga. 1876)
- In re Handlin (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas 1875)
- In re Blodgett (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1827)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The motion of O. L. Harris, assignee in bankruptcy of Harris & Allen, to be made party defendant, is allowed, but we do not adjudicate any conflicting claims between the assignee and the defendants, as the defendants have no notice.
One of two or more partners cannot have a portion of the partnership effects set apart to him, as his personal property exemption, without the consent of the other partner or partners ; because the property is not his. But if the other partner or partners consent, then it may be done. The creditors of the firm cannot object, because they no more have a lien upon the partnership effects for their debts, than creditors of an individual have upon his effects. In our case fhe partners did assent.
It is proper to say, that the counsel for the plaintiffs in this case were misled by a misprint, in the opinion of this Court, when this case was before us heretofore, (66 N. C. R.) “ Sufficient ” is printed for “ ¿^sufficient.”
There is error. Judgment reversed, and judgment here that the property levied on be discharged from the levy, and the money in the hands of the clerk or other person will be paid over to the defendant. And if the money under the order of the Court below has been paid over to the plaintiffs, there will be judgment in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs for the amount. And if the counsel do not agree, the clerk will ascertain the facts.
Pee Cueiam. Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.