This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1882 Excerpt: ... Nash vs. Heilman. Seinonen and George Dixon shall well and truly account for and pay over to the said Thaxter, administrator, as aforesaid, and his successors, all sums of money that are now due or may hereafter become due from them as surviving partners" of the particular firm of which Mr. Hunt was a member, to the estate of their leading partner, Thomas J. Hunt, deceased, "this obligation shall be void, else be and remain in full force and virtue." When this bond was filed it was accepted by the plaintiff, and the application for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver was waived, and the court thereupon directed the amount which was paid into court by the defendants to be paid to the plaintiff, and the bond which had been tendered to be given to the plaintiff, a copy being left on file in the court. On this bond the two defendants that demur, as I have said, were sureties, and the contention on their part is, that after this bond was executed and delivered to the plaintiffs there were acts done by the executors of Mr. Hunt which should prevent the plaintiffs from recovering on the bond. The bond was dated on the 25th day of March, 1874, and the order of the court already referred to accepting the money and the bond and ordering both to be delivered to the plaintiff, was made on the 3d of April, 1874. After the probate of the will Mr. Thaxter ceased to be the special administrator and the executors appointed under the will assumed control of the estate. On the 18th of July, 1876, they made a settlement with Semonen and Dixon of all the matters in controversy and fixed upon the amount due from the surviving partners to the estate of Mr. Hunt, and took four notes for the amount. All of which notes as written bear date the 30th of November, 1875. Th...