Magistrate Yui and Mr. Bucknell gave an important decision last week in the ease of the Western Tavern (in liquidation) concerning the bility of partners in a Chinese partnership which is of considerable moment in view of the decision of Magistrate Kuan in -the case of Barlow & Ca. v the Ming Sung Umbrella Factory and Yen Siao Hong etc., reported last July.
The judgment was given on an plication by the Court accountants that the only pa: rtner who had means (one Ma Yul-sung); Yn a Chinese partnership, should be made lo to pay the nett amount of the deficiency due by the partner ship on liquidation.
The Court accountants presented fa statement showing the members of the partnership who had paid a portion of the liabilities and others who had failed or absconded. The Case of Messrs. Barlow & Ca.
Mr. S, H. Lewis appeared for Mr. Ma Yui-sung and argued that ae-cording to Shanghai custom partners were only liable for the partnership debts in proportion to the shares held by them in the partnership and that, as his client had alrendy paid in full his liability on that basis, he could not be called upon to pay any more. He referred the judgment of July 16, 1926, in the above mentioned case of Barlow Ca. v. the Ming Sung Umbrelia Factory in which the Senior Magistrate Mx. Kuan had definitely ruled that a partner's liability ceased when he had paid his proportionate part of the partnership's debts, and that partners were not jointly and severally liabi The Magistrate observed that th case quoted by Mr, Lewis related to a limited company of which the registration had not bosn completed. Mr. Lewis submitted that in such ease the company was unlimited and a mere partnership and further that Magistrate Kuan's decision definitely déatt with' the question of a mere partretski and the custom as. indWidual' partners" liability. belo limited to the proportion of rheic shares, He quoted various passages from the judgment covering these points. He then referred to two previous judgments given in the Present case. The first of these, hho stated, ruled that the partners should pay the deficiency in proportion to the capital owned by each of them, while the second merely stated that the partners who were in the partnership at the time of liquidation should attend the Court accountants' office and pay their their shares of the indebtedness, the latter case no mention was made any further liability beyond that [proportionate to their individual share.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.