Krone v. Higgins, Judge

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Elsbury

    175 P.2d 430 (Nev. 1946)   Cited 14 times

    10. It is well settled that the property of a partnership belongs to the firm and not to the partners. Fourth National Bank of New York v. New Orleans Carrollton Railroad Co., supra, 11 Wall. 624, 20 L.Ed. 82, 83; Krone v. Higgins, 195 Okla. 380, 158 P.2d 471, 472; Jensen v. Wiersma, supra, 185 Iowa 551, 170 N.W. 780, 4 A.L.R. 298, 299; In re Prince's Estate, 141 Misc. 600, 252 N.Y.S. 908, 910, reversed on other grounds 238 App. Div. 855, 262 N.Y.S. 785; Brinson v. Monroe Automobile Supply Co., 180 La. 1064, 158 So. 558, 96 A.L.R. 1206, 1212; Windom National Bank of Windom v. Klein, 191 Minn. 447, 254 N.W. 602, 604; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shapiro, 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 532, 144 A.L.R. 349, 353; 40 Am. Jur., Partnership, sec. 114, note 3; 47 C.J., page 781, note 2. 11. A partner has no individual property in any specific assets of the firm.

  2. Buell Cabinet Co., Inc. v. Sudduth

    608 F.2d 431 (10th Cir. 1979)   Cited 427 times
    Explaining that "[c]ross-motions for summary judgment are to be treated separately; the denial of one does not require the grant of another."

    However, Sudduth claims never to have had an individual interest in the property, but rather to have been only a partner or stockholder in entities owning the Center. Since under Oklahoma law a judgment lien attaches only to real property owned by the judgment debtor, Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 706 (West Supp. 1978), and "[t]he property of a partnership belongs to the firm, and not to the partners," Krone v. Higgins, 195 Okl. 380, 381, 158 P.2d 471, 472 (1945), quoting First National Bank v. Dunklin, 146 Okl. 81, 293 P. 541 (1930), the status of the Center's ownership is at issue. The undisputed history of the transactions involving the Center is complex.

  3. ROBY v. DAY

    1981 OK 122 (Okla. 1981)   Cited 3 times

    Perkins v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Okla., 428 P.2d 328 (1967).Krone v. Higgins, 195 Okla. 380, 158 P.2d 471 (1945).Windom Nat. Bank v. Klein, 191 Minn. 447, 254 N.W. 602 (1934); 39 ALR2d 1365, 1367.

  4. Perkins v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

    428 P.2d 328 (Okla. 1967)   Cited 9 times

    40 Am.Jur., Partnership, Sec. 114, p. 209. Goldberg v. Goldberg, 375 Pa. 78, 99 A.2d 474, 39 A.L.R.2d 1359; see also Krone v. Higgins, 195 Okla. 380, 158 P.2d 471. In the light of these authorities, and mindful of the necessity for maintaining harmony in the construction of the Uniform Partnership Act, we hold here that the deceased partner's interest, to which his representative succeeds, is a chose in action — a right to receive money shown to be due on liquidation and accounting — and hence constitutes intangible property.

  5. Tennant v. Dodsworth

    349 P.2d 9 (Okla. 1960)   Cited 5 times

    Dodsworth, an assignee of Snowden, alleges the amount due him is from the defendants other than Tennant, as individuals and not as partners of Snowden, while Tennant claims the amount due him is due by Snowden and the remaining defendants as partners. If a partnership existed as alleged by Tennant, his claim would necessarily have to be settled before Dodsworth, as the assignee of Snowden, could claim any portion of the proceeds of the sale. See Cobb v. Martin, 32 Okla. 588, 123 P. 422; Krone v. Higgins, 195 Okla. 380, 158 P.2d 471. The situation then, as disclosed by the pleadings, shows two claimants seeking to subject the proceeds from the sale of the personal property attached by the plaintiff, to the payment of the individual claims, and each claiming priority thereto. We therefore hold the matters and things alleged and set up in Tennant's cross petition are germane to the matters involved in the original petition; are sufficient to challenge a judicial inquiry; and present an issue of fact. Where an issue of fact is presented by the pleadings, it is error for the trial court to sustain a motion for judgment on the pleadings.