TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hirsch, Wickwire Co. v. Denison Clothing Co.

Hirsch, Wickwire Company v. Denison Clothing Company and Julius Sonksen

Hirsch, Wickwire Co. v. Denison Clothing Co., 158 Iowa 117 (1912)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 14, 1912
Judges
Deemer
Citations
158 Iowa 117
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Partnership: marshalling op assets : rights of creditors. Inequity-partnership property constitutes a fund for the payment of partnership debts, the separate property of the partners being liable for their individual debts; and individual creditors cannot look to firm property until the firm debts are paid, and firm creditors cannot look to individual property until the individual debts are paid. So that where a creditor of a partnership and also of one of the partners received funds of both the firm and the individual, a co-partner had the right to insist that the firm funds should be first applied to the firm debts; especially that portion received after knowledge by the creditor that he was receiving firm funds, and that no part of the funds received should be applied, on the debt of the partner, except payments made from his individual funds.
Summary
Appeal from Crawford District Court. — Hon F. M. Powers, Judge. Action upon account for goods and merchandise sold and delivered. Defendant Sonksen filed an answer and counterclaim, and upon the issues joined the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s petition and rendered judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Deemer

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Deemer, J.

This case is ruled by Wile, Weill & Co. v. Denison Clothing Co. et al., decided at the present term. In addition to the authorities there cited, we may properly *118 call attention to the fact that this is an equitable action for an accounting, and involves the doctrine of the proper application of funds. Plaintiffs here are creditors of C. C. Kemming, and also of the firm of Kemming & Sonksen, doing business under the name of the Denison Clothing Com-' pany. It has received funds or property of the partnership and some funds belonging to Kemming individually. In this action, brought against all the parties, defendant Sonksen asks a marshaling of the debits and credits, and insists that payments made by the partnership, or out of partnership funds, shall be applied to the firm debts, especially those payments made after notice or knowledge by plaintiff that it was receiving partnership funds, and that nothing should be credited upon the individual debts of Kemming, save payments made by him from his individual funds. That this is the rule everywhere recognized is certain from an examination of the authorities. Vide, Hoaglin v. Henderson, 119 Iowa, 720 ; Harwell v. St. Paul Co., 45 Minn. 495, ( 48 N. W. 326 , 22 Am. St. Rep. 747 ); National Bank v. Brubaker, 128 Iowa, 592 ; Reyburn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365 ( 16 S. W. 592 , 27 Am. St. Rep. 353 ); Morrison v. Blodgett, 8 N. H. 238, ( 29 Am. Dec. 658 ) ; Evans v. Hawley, 35 Iowa, 83 .

In Parsons on Partnership (4th Ed.) Sections 382 and 402, it is said:

This is still more the case with questions of bankruptcy, which go into equity almost exclusively. We might expect that questions which connect partnership with bankruptcy should be, more than most others, determined on equitable principles. Hence the rule is distinctly established in equity that in bankruptcy of a partnership the joint property forms a fund appropriated to the joint creditors, and the several property of each creditor a several fund appropriated to the several creditors of each partner. And the joint creditors cannot go to the several property until the several creditors are paid in full, and there is a surplus over, by which the joint creditors may benefit. On the other hand, the several creditors cannot look to the joint fund until all the joint debts are *119 paid, and there is a surplus; and then the several creditors of a partner may resort to that partner’s interest in,that surplus. It has, however, been held that if one partner pays more than his share of the partnership debts he has, in equity, a claim on the partnership property superior to the claims of the separate creditors of the copartners.

"While solvent partners cannot prove against the joint fund to the prejudice of joint creditors, because they are liable to those creditors, they may prove against the, joint fund, in competition with the several creditors, to whom they are not liable. Indeed, their rights are prior to those of the several creditors; for those creditors can have the right of their debtor to the joint fund only after all claims upon it are satisfied, and, among these, the claims of the other partners. On this point, it must be the general rule, applicable to all partnerships, whether they be general or confined to a particular business or a particular transaction, and, indeed, to all joint adventures and enterprises of every kind, that they must be first settled, and the mutual claims and balances of the co-partners and coadventurers be adjudged, before the divisible surplus is ascertained; and then the right of each one is only to his share of this surplus, and the creditors of each one can reach and acquire only his right. It follows, therefore, that the several creditors of each one will be postponed, so far as the joint assets go, not only to the joint creditors, but to the claims of the coadventurers for balances due from'their companions, arising out of the adventure.

Applying these rules, it follows that the decree of the district court must be, and it is, Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1927: 21933: 119272026peak 1927 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Simmons v. Simmons246 N.W. 597 (Iowa 1933)
  2. In re Assignment of Cutler & Horgen212 N.W. 573 (Iowa 1927)
  3. Peterson Co. v. Freeburn215 N.W. 746 (Iowa 1927)

Most recent

  1. Simmons v. Simmons246 N.W. 597 (Iowa 1933)
  2. Peterson Co. v. Freeburn215 N.W. 746 (Iowa 1927)
  3. In re Assignment of Cutler & Horgen212 N.W. 573 (Iowa 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 48 N.W. 326 (Minn. 1891) 16
Reyburn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365 (1891) 33
Hoaglin v. C. M. Henderson &. Co., 61 L.R.A. 756 (Iowa 1903) 14
Evans v. Hawley, 35 Iowa 83 (1872) 8
First Nat'l Bank v. Brubaker, 105 N.W. 116 (Iowa 1905) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list