It is well settled, as matter of law in this Commonwealth, that in a suit against two or more copartners upon their joint debt, the separate property of any one of the partners may be attached, and the lien so acquired is not discharged or impaired by a subsequent attachment of the same property, upon a suit in favor of a separate creditor of the same partner. Allen v. Wells, 22 Pick. 450. Newman v. Bagley, 16 Pick. 570. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has in several cases held otherwise. Jarvis v. Brooks, 23 N. H. 136. Bowker v. Smith, 48 N. H. 111. But we must consider ourselves bound by our own decisions. As the debt due from the partners jointly is also due from each, it may be enforced against the separate property of each. It is immaterial whether this separate property is in the form of goods and movable chattels, or goods, effects and credits intrusted and deposited in such a manner that they can only be attached upon a trustee process. It is not necessary that the principal debtors should have made a joint deposit, or that the fund should belong to them jointly. It is enough if funds attachable upon a trustee process are due from the alleged trustee to either one of the principal defendants. Trustees charged.
Stevens v. Perry
113 Mass. 380
Mass.1873Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.