Murray v. . Penny
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil action, commenced on April 4th, 1890, and tried at October Term, 1890, of Wake Superior Court, Boyldn, J., presiding. It was admitted that plaintiff and defendant entered into a copartnership in the year 1884, and that the copartnership was dissolved by mutual consent in the fall of 1885. There was but one issue submitted to the jury, and that was upon the statutory bar; and after hearing the evidence, the.
Read the full summary
Civil action, commenced on April 4th, 1890, and tried at October Term, 1890, of Wake Superior Court, Boyldn, J., presiding. It was admitted that plaintiff and defendant entered into a copartnership in the year 1884, and that the copartnership was dissolved by mutual consent in the fall of 1885. There was but one issue submitted to the jury, and that was upon the statutory bar; and after hearing the evidence, the. Court held that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute of limitations, and instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant, and from a judgment rendered…
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
The Court having held that, upon the evidence, the plaintiff’s claim was barred and so instructed the jury, it is necessary to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant.
Unless there is some agreement, express or implied, fixing a period for accounting beyond the time of dissolution, or circumstances that render an accounting .impossible, the statute begins to run from the time the partnership is in fact dissolved. Wood on Lim., § 210. During the existence of the partnership, the partners mutually sustain the relation of trustee and cestioi que trust. ■ Where…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Edwin Bates & Co. v. E. B. Herren & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- Moore v. . WestbrookSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Dukes v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942