Phipps v. Little
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon eight promissory notes, each declared upon in a separate count, all signed “Little Eastman Co.,” which was alleged to be the firm name in which the defendant Little and the defendant Eastman did business as copartners. Writ dated July 2, 1909. In the Superior Court the case was tried before Dana, J. The defendant Eastman was defaulted, and the trial proceeded against the defendant Little. The evidence is described sufficiently in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Contract, upon eight promissory notes, each declared upon in a separate count, all signed “Little Eastman Co.,” which was alleged to be the firm name in which the defendant Little and the defendant Eastman did business as copartners. Writ dated July 2, 1909. In the Superior Court the case was tried before Dana, J. The defendant Eastman was defaulted, and the trial proceeded against the defendant Little. The evidence is described sufficiently in the opinion. At the close of the evidence, the defendant Little asked the judge to make twenty-three rulings, of which the first two were as follows:…
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
If the relation between the defendants was that the defendant Eastman, who was defaulted at the trial, should receive a percentage of the profits as compensation for his services, then, *416as the judge told the jury, he was an employee of the defendant Little, and not a partner. The evidence, however, was plenary that under the name of Little and Eastman Company the defendants engaged in the manufacture of banjo clocks, and, although Little furnished the capital, the profits were to be divided between them in certain proportions. The jury, if convinced that this was the understanding and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Thompson v. First Nat. Bank of ToledoSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- McMurtrie v. GuilerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- William Gilligan Co. v. CaseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Locke v. LewisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Smith v. CollinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Saenger Organization, Inc. v. Nationwide Insurance Licensing Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
- Crompton v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Robinson v. Trustees of the New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Lindsay v. SwiftMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Neville v. GiffordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.