Bullock v. Hubbard
Before: Crocker
Synopsis
B. & L. were partners. B. & L. as a partnership was also a member of two other firms—B., B. & S. and B., L., S. & D. The firms all failed, and their property was attached by creditors. The creditors of B., L. & S. and B., L., S. & D. obtained the first attachments, and placed them in the hands of the Sheriff, before the creditors of B. & L. placed their’s in his hands. The Sheriff levied all the wits on the property in the order in which they were placed in his hands. The Sheriff had in his hands a sum of money received from the sale of the property of B. & L. to apply on the executions issued on judgments rendered in the actions :
Held, that the creditors of B. & L. were entitled to the money; and that, where a partnership is composed of two or more firms, the creditors of one of the firms are entitled to a preference in the payment of their debts, over the creditors of the whole partnership, out of money the proceeds of the property of that firm.
Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Norton, J. concurring.
This is an action in the nature of a suit in equity, brought by the plaintiff, Sheriff of Placer County, against the defendants, who are the judgment creditors of three partnership firms: one composed of “Bishop & Long,” the second of “ Bishop, Long, Siefert & Dodsworth;” and the other of “ Bishop, Long & Stewart,” to determine which of said creditors are entitled to a sum of money in his hands—the proceeds of the sale of certain partnership property, owned by the firm of “ Bishop & Long.’.’ It seems that the same Bishop & Long were members of each of these partnership firms, and each firm was engaged in carrying on separate kinds of busi[501]ness—each owning its separate partnership property. The property levied upon and sold by the Sheriff, was owned by the firm of “ Bishop & Long,” and none of the others, as partnership firms, had any interest therein. The Court below held, that the creditors of the firm of “ Bishop & Long ” were entitled to the money realized from the sale in order of the priority of their several attachment liens; and judgment was rendered accordingly, from which the other defendants appeal.
The judgment of the Court below is correct. It has been repeatedly decided by this Court, that the creditors of a partnership are entitled to a preference over the creditors of the individual partners in the payment of their debts out of the partnership property, or moneys arising therefrom, without regard to the priority of attachment liens. ( Chase v. Steel, 9 Cal. 64; Conroy v. Woods, 13 Id. 626 ; Dupuy v. Leavenworth, 17 Id. 262; Burpee v. Bunn, 22 Id. 194.) And the same principle applies as between the creditors of several partnership firms as in the present case.
The judgment is affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)