(j) Morrison v. Blodgett, 8 N. H. 254. Parker, J.: " Whether, under our present laws, the creditor can do more than return a general attachment of the interest of his debtor in the partnership, and summon the other partners as his trustees , and what are the effects of such a service upon the rights and duties of the other partners, and, of course, upon the action of the debtor himself? Whether it can suspend his right to interfere with the partnership property, so long as the attachment exists, or whether he may proceed to act as partner until judgment and sale upon execution? And whether, after an attachment, the creditor of any of the partners may maintain a bill in equity for an account before a seizure and sale of the interest of the debtor on the execution 1 are questions which may arise, but upon which this case does not call for an opinion." - Dow v. Sayward, 12 N. H. 276; Page v. Carpenter, 10 N. H. 77; s. c. 14 N. H. 9, 12.

1 It is held in most jurisdictions that a partner's interest in partnership property may be attached on mesne process or taken on an execution for an individual debt of that partner. Recent cases almost universally hold also that in no way can the creditor obtain more than the interest of the indebted partner, after partnership creditors have been satisfied and equities between the partners adjusted. But further than this, the extent of the creditor's right and the method of exercising it vary. In some jurisdictions a mode of procedure is provided by statute. Anderson v. Chenney, 51 Ga. 372; Richards v. Haines, 30 Ia. 574; Kaine's Appeal, 92 Pa. 273 , (see Dengler's Appeal, 125 Pa. 12); Middlebrook v. Zapp, 79 Tex. 321

Where no such method is provided, the sheriff may generally seize all the partnership property and sell the debtor's interest therein. Farley v. Moog, 79 Ala. 148; Clark v. Cushing, 52 Cal. 617; Wright v. Ward, 65 Cal. 525; White v. Jones, 38 Ill. 159; Williams v. Lewis, 115 Ind. 45; Chopin v. Wilson, 27 La. An. 444; Hacker v. Johnson, 66 Me. 21; People's Bank v. Shrycock, 48 Md. 427; Barrett v. McKenzie, 24 Minn. 20; Lane v. Lenfest, 40 Minn. 375; Atkins v. Saxton, 77 N. Y. 195; Kaufman v. Schoeffel, 46 Hun, 571; Nixon v. Nash, 12 Ohio St. 647; Trafford v. Hubbard, 15 R. I. 326.

If the partnership prove insolvent or the indebted partner proves to be entitled to nothing on an accounting, the attaching creditor gets nothing. Wilson v. Strobach, 59 Ala. 488; Deane v. Hutchinson, 40 N. J. Eq. 83; Staats v. Bristow, 73 N. Y. 265.

It is often said that the sheriff must not act in hostility to the other partners or treat the property as belonging solely to the debtor, or he will be a trespasser. See Daniel v. Owens, 70 Ala. 297; Atkins v. Saxton, 77 N. Y. 195; Snell v. Crowe, 3 Utah, 26 And the sheriff may not attach or levy on particular chattels, for a partner's right is to the balance found due him on a settlement of the whole business, not to a particular share in each chattel. Daniel v. Owens, 70 Ala. 297; Tait v. Murphy, 80 Ala. 440; Stumph v. Bauer, 76 Ind. 157; Williams v. Lewis, 115 Ind. 45; Levy v. Cowan, 27 La. An. 556; Hutchinson v. Dubois, 45 Mich. 143; Irby v. Graham, 46 Miss. 423, 430; Vandike v. Rosskam, 67 Pa. 330.

For the same reason a debt due the firm cannot be garnisheed by a creditor of one partner. People's Bank v. Shrycock, 48 Md. 427; Bulfinch v. Winchenbach, 3 Allen, 161; Williams v. Gage, 49 Miss. 777; Myers v. Smith, 29 Ohio St. 120; Sweet v. Reed, 12 R. I. 121.

Contrary decisions, that a particular chattel or debt may be seized or garnisheed though any right obtained thereby is subject to the claims of partnership creditors and the satisfaction of partnership equities, are Hershfield v. Claflin, 25 Kan. 166; Thompson v. Lewis, 34 Me. 167; Fogg v. Lawry, 68 Me. 78; Randall v. Johnson, 13 R. I. 338; Saunders v. Bartlett, 12 Heisk. 316.

In some jurisdictions, though the sheriff may sell the partner's interest, neither he nor a purchaser from him can take possession. Treadwell v. Brown, 43 N. H. 290; Garvin v. Paul, 47 N. H. 158; Richard v. Allen, 117 Pa. 199.

And in Massachusetts, it may be doubted whether a creditor of a partner has any means of attaching or levying at law on his debtor's interest in the partnership. Fay v. Duggan, 135 Mass. 242. See also Hutchinson v. Dubois, 45 Mich. 143.

nership creditors are satisfied, is now the universal rule both in courts of law and of equity.(k) But whether the private property of a partner is equally preserved for his private creditors, is not perhaps certain. At law, no such rule seems to be well established. But where the partnership has failed, and the partnership property is held as a fund for the partnership creditors, the justice of holding the private property of individual partners for the exclusive benefit of their private creditors, is obvious. Then each fund would be held separate; the partnership assets for the partnership creditors, and the assets of each partner for his own creditors, and only the balance of each fund, after the special claims upon it were discharged, would be applicable to the claims of the other class. But it will be seen from our note that this cannot now be asserted, on authority, to be a settled rule, even in equity. (l)

(k) Murrill v. Neill, 8 How. 414; Shedd v. Wilson, 1 Williams, 478; Converse v. McKee, 14 Tex. 20.

(/) In the time of Lord Hardwicke joint creditors were allowed, in bankruptcy, to prove their debts under a separate commission against one partner, or under separate commissions against all the partners, but only for the purpose of assenting to or dissenting from the certificate, and were considered to have an equitable right to the surplus of the separate estate, after payment of the separate creditors. Ex parte Baudier, 1 Atk. 98; Ex parte Voguel, id. 132; Ex parte Oldknow, Co. B. L. ch. 6, § 15; Ex parte Cobham, id. See Dutton v. Morrison, 17 Ves. 207; Ex parte Farlow,