Important decision under the sequestration act.
[From the Montgomery Advertiser.]The following decision was rendered on Monday by Judge Jones, in the district court, which we have been permitted to copy for the benefit of those who may be similarly situated. We understand the amount involved in this case will be considerable, after paying Mr. Saulsbury's interest:
The Confederate States vs. J. L. Saulsbury & Co., Garnishees. --In this case, arising under the sequestration law, it appears from the answer and petition of James L. Saulsbury that a co-partnership heretofore existed between himself and John T. Henry, in the mercantile business in New York, under the firm of Saulsbury & Henry, and in Alabama under the firm of J. L. Saulsbury & Co.
Mr. Saulsbury is a citizen of Alabama. Mr. Menry is alleged to be a citizen of New York, and though that fact is not distinctly admitted, I will, for the purposes of this motion, assume that he is an alien enemy. There are effects of both firms in this State, and a considerable amount of debts due them. Mr. Saulsbury now files his position, praying in effect for an order of Court authorizing him to go on to collect the debts due these firms and to wind up their business, and he moves for an order accordingly.
There is really no necessity for any such order. When, as in this case, a mercantile partnership has heretofore existed between one of our citizens and a person now an alien enemy, and there are effects of the firm in this State, the partnership is dissolved by the war. The rights and interests of the alien enemy partner are liable to be sequestered. But the rights and interests of the home partner in the effects of the firm are not thereby divested. He may go on to collect his debts and wind up the business of the firm, without any order of court for that purpose. He is of course bound to account and pay over to the receiver the portion of the effects which would otherwise go to his former partner. He should allow the receiver access to the books of the firm, and from time to time give him all proper information about its business.
If he mismanages this business in any way, the Court may appoint a Receiver to take possession and management of the effects of the firm, on a proper showing being made. It is in this respect analogous to a case of dissolution of copartnership by the death or bankruptcy of one of the partners. The surviving or solvent partner may go on to wind up the business, subject to account to the ee of the bankrupt or the representative of the deceased partner, and subject, too, in case of misconduct, to having a receiver appointed to take charge of the business. So in this case, the Receiver, under the sequestration law, is the representative of the alien enemy partner, and the home partner is like a solvent or surviving partner.
