Bloodworth v. Booser
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court, Western District; Frank Smith, Judge; statement by the court. This suit was commenced before a justice of the peace, and on .appeal to the circuit court there was a trial de novo before the court sitting as a jury. The note sued on was for $65, given by appellant to appellee for his interest in a co-partnership known as the Corning Opera House Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court, Western District; Frank Smith, Judge; statement by the court. This suit was commenced before a justice of the peace, and on .appeal to the circuit court there was a trial de novo before the court sitting as a jury. The note sued on was for $65, given by appellant to appellee for his interest in a co-partnership known as the Corning Opera House Company. At the time of the purchase and sale, the partnership owed certain debts, the exact amount of which was not known to either appellant or appellee; but both parties knew there were partnership debts. A few days…
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). It is conceded by the parties to the suit that purchasers of the share of an individual partner can only take his interest, and that interest consists in the vendor’s share of the surplus which remains after the payment of the partnership debts and the settlement of accounts between the partners. See 30 Cyc. 458 and 605.
This is the law, and it follows that where one partner transfers his interest in the partnership to a third person such purchase does not make the buyer a partner in the firm without the concurrence of the other partners, and the purchaser…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smock v. PiersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mellon Nat. Bank v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of CamdenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1937
- Landmark Savings Bank v. Weaver-Bailey Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1987
- Go v. Crossett Health FoundationCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2012
- Steve L. Jones v. Mnlrn, LLCCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2025