Legal Opinion

Smith v. Tarlton

New York Court of Chancery

Decided October 25, 1847PublishedCited by 13 opinions

This was an application to dissolve an injunction, upon the matter of the bill only. The object of the bill was to obtain an account and settlement of the concerns of a copartnership which had existed and been carried on between the complainant and the defendants; and to restrain one of the defendants, who was stated in the bill to have misapplied the funds, from selling, disposing of, or -intermeddling with the copartnership effects.

Read the full summary

This was an application to dissolve an injunction, upon the matter of the bill only. The object of the bill was to obtain an account and settlement of the concerns of a copartnership which had existed and been carried on between the complainant and the defendants; and to restrain one of the defendants, who was stated in the bill to have misapplied the funds, from selling, disposing of, or -intermeddling with the copartnership effects. The bilí stated that, by the copartnership agreement, which was by parol, the complainant and the defendants entered into a partnership which was to continue…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The misapplication of the copartnership funds, and other violations of duty in relation to the books, property and effects of the firm, by the defendant Finley, appear to make a proper case for the granting of an injunction against him. And I cannot see that there is any validity in either of the objections raised by the counsel of the defendants, to the parol agreement of copartnership.

This was not, as the counsel supposes, an agreement which was not to be performed within one year; so as to require it to be in writing, under the statute of frauds. • But it was the formation…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. Wahl v. . BarnumNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. National Bank v. . Van DerwerkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  3. Marsh v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
  4. McElroy v. SwopeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1891
  5. Chester v. DickersonNew York Supreme Court · 1868

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API