Holyoke v. Mayo
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit. The plaintiffs and the defendant were eopartners in the lumbering business, in Weymouth, N. b., for some years prior to August, 1858. The defendant had the management of the business at a fixed salary. In Aug., 1858, the co-partners had a meeting, and voted to dissolve the company, Mayo objecting, and to reduce his salary to §600, until another agent was appointed.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The plaintiffs and the defendant were eopartners in the lumbering business, in Weymouth, N. b., for some years prior to August, 1858. The defendant had the management of the business at a fixed salary. In Aug., 1858, the co-partners had a meeting, and voted to dissolve the company, Mayo objecting, and to reduce his salary to §600, until another agent was appointed. F. W. Goodwin was appointed agent, Mayo resisted, and, for some months, each carried on the business separately in the name of the partnership. ' On April 22, 1859, an agreement was made by all parties as to the terms of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Appleton, J.
The plaintiffs’ claim can be supported upon no known or recognized principles of the common law as heretofore administered in England or on this continent.
The plaintiffs and defendant were partners.' After much negotiation the partnership was dissolved, and a settlement of its affairs concluded on 15th June, 1859. The plaintiffs were to pay the defendant three thousand dollars for his interest in the real estate, mills, &c., of the firm, and to give him four thousand dollars for " the estimated balance of 'his account.” At that date (15th…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re KnabbPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Berks County · 1873
3Cited by3 opinions
- Shipley v. BolducSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- File v. BsharahWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1927
- Newman v. TichenorAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900