Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Mitchell v. Hampel — Opinion of the Court

The firm creditors know that they will be postponed to individual creditors, and that they have no voice or knowledge as to who the individual creditors shall be, or what the amount of their claims. The only real equity is not to disturb the equilibrium established by the parties. Those who take less security have no claim to be put on a footing with those who require more. It is not necessary to go into nice speculations as to what a partner can add to the liability already incurred when he offers a separate contract in addition to that which is made by his firm.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Mitchell v. Hampel — Opinion of the Court

By making a separate contract although in the same instrument he calls the separate liability into being, as presumably he intends to and as he has a right to do. Robinson v. Seaboard National Bank of New York (C. C. A.) 247 F. 667, 668, 669, 10 A. L. R. 842; Id. (C. C. A.) , 247 F. 1007, 10 A. L. R. 842. The intent and transaction are not illegal in Texas. Their specific effect depends on the Bankruptcy Act.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature