The American Decisions Volume 26; Containing All The Cases Of General Value And Authority Decided In The Courts Of The Several States, From The Earliest Issue Of The State Reports To The Year 1869
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. 1886 Excerpt: ...in this case is not objectionable, as it submits to the jury the fact of the dissolution of partnership and the period of that dissolution, which were matters proper to be tried by a jury. We...
Paperback: 348 pages
Publisher: RareBooksClub.com (May 14, 2012)
Product Dimensions: 7.4 x 0.7 x 9.7 inches
Format: PDF ePub djvu book
- 115363399X pdf
- 978-1153633994 pdf
- Bancroft-Whitney Company pdf
- Bancroft-Whitney Company books
- epub books
are next to inquire whether the chancellor erred in treating Reybold and Dodd as equal partners, and decreeing that the defendant should pay to the complainant one half of the profits of the concern with interest from the period of its termination. We have already expressed the opinion that the interlocutory decree of the seventh of July, 1828, directing Reybold to account, did establish tbe existence of a partnership; and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, a partnership of equal interests. If a partnership exist without express agreement regulating its terms, or none such be proved, it is governed by the contract which the law implies from the relation of the parties. The law implies that they are equally interested in the joint concern, and with respect to profits, that they are entitled to an equal division, unless the contrary be made to appear: Gow on Fart. 10. It is true the case of Peacock v. Peacock (2 Camp. 45) ia different; but that was a nisi prius decision, and has been overruled. In this case there is no proof whatever in relation to the interest of the partners, nor was the equality of interest denied in any stage of the cause previous to the argument on appeal. The chancellor therefore rightly treated the complainant and defendant as equal partners, and decreed a division of profits accordingly. If the complainant was entitled to one half the profits at the dissolution of the concern, he was also entitled to interest for its detention from such time as it ought to have been paid over. The chancellor has taken the period of dissolution; and, as the...