Moran v. McInerney

TEMPLE, J.

The action was brought against defendant Mclnemey to dissolve a copartnership, and for an accounting. Plaintiff also asked that certain property be declared to be partnership property, and be distributed between plaintiff and defendant as partners. Mclnemey answered and denied the existence of the partnership and all allegations made by plaintiff in respect thereto. In this state of the pleadings a trial was had and an interlocutory decree was entered. Ho findings were made, but it was decreed that plaintiff and defendant did prior to May, 1870, enter into and form a copartnership for the purpose of buying and selling real estate, and subsequently did buy and sell real estate in pursuance of the partnership agreement, and that plaintiff was entitled to have said partnership dissolved, and a referee was appointed to state an. account. This decree bears date May 3, 1889. Subsequently, January 9, 1891, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint, bringing in and

[31]

making defendants George W. Burnett, the Humboldt Savings and Loan Society, and Patrick Cahill. In this supplemental complaint it is alleged,

inter

alia, that in 1884 McInerney conveyed to Burnett certain property, alleged to have been the property of the copartnership, to secure payment to Burnett of the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty-six dollars and ninety cents to redeem the land from foreclosure sales upon mortgages existing on the land when the same were purchased for the copartnership; and also that defendant McInerney in 1884, after the commencement of this action, assigned and convejred to said Cahill, for the benefit of the creditors of McInerney, all the real and personal property of McInerney; that Cahill never filed an inventory or qualified as such assignee, and subsequently McInerney settled with his creditors. Burnett answered, admitting the conveyance, hut denied that it was intended as a mortgage. Cahill also answered, admitting the conveyance to him, hut alleging that Mclnerney was indebted to him, and demanded payment out of the interest of McInerney.

Later other supplemental complaints were filed charging that Mclnerney had conveyed since the commencement of the action other interests in the land, and, among others, that M. C. Has-sett had acquired an interest by conveyance from Mclnerney, and that Hassett acquired such interest with full notice of the rights of plaintiff in respect to the land. Answers were interposed to these supplemental complaints, a trial had, findings made, and a decree was entered.