Lovejoy v. Bowers
Opinion of the Court
We are of opinion that one partner cannot sell, or mortgage, an undivided interest in a specific part of the property belonging to the partnership. The property constitutes a fund, or capital, to carry on the business of the partnership,and to pay partnership creditors ; and the separate interest of each partner is an interest in the surplus. 8 N.H.Rep. 338, Morrison vs. Blodgett.
If it had appeared that the mortgage, in this case, comprised all the partnership property, it might perhaps be considered as a mortgage of the share of Frederick Lovejoy in the surplus. But in that view, it cannot avail against the defendant, because the property is all appropriated to the payment of partnership creditors.
The distinction between prior and subsequent creditors, taken in the argument, cannot be supported.
If a mortgagee of the entire interest of one partner, in the
Considered as a mortgage of the interest of one partner in the partnership property ; and admitting that such a mortgage might be valid as between the parties ; the mortgagee, having permitted the mortgager to continue the business, could only be entitled to such surplus as might remain after the payment of the partnership debts, whether contracted before or after the execution of the mortgage. He could stand in no better situation than the mortgager in this respect.
Verdict set aside, and judgment for the defendant.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.