Farnsworth v. Whitney
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions from the superior court. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced March 8, 1880, and tried by the justice without the intervention of a jury, at the September term, 1880, subject to exceptions in matters of law. Plea, the general issue. For several years prior to January 17, 1879, the plaintiff and defendant were partners engaged in the boot and shoe business in the city of Portland.
Read the full summary
On exceptions from the superior court. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced March 8, 1880, and tried by the justice without the intervention of a jury, at the September term, 1880, subject to exceptions in matters of law. Plea, the general issue. For several years prior to January 17, 1879, the plaintiff and defendant were partners engaged in the boot and shoe business in the city of Portland. On said seventeenth day of January, 1879, the partnership was dissolved and a settlement of partnership affairs made between the partners according to the terms of a written agreement, which is to…
1Opinion of the Court
Walton,. J.
The presiding justice of the superior court ruled that upon the facts found and reported by him, the action could not be maintained. We think the ruling was correct.
When the two members of which a firm is composed, settle their partnership affairs and dissolve, and one of them takes an ■ assignment of the other’s interest in the partnership property, paying therefor a sum agreed upon by them, and assumes the ■payment of the partnership debts, the effect of the arrangement is to extinguish the assignor’s indebtedness to the firm. Such .an arrangement implies that the assignor is to…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Wright v. LakeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- French v. MulhollandMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
- Crockett v. BurlesonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1906
- Riddell v. RamseyMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Barton v. Thompson's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.