Williamson v. Monroe
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. The complaint in this case, set forth that the defendant and one Henry Williamson were engaged as partners in general business, for three years, prior to the 10th January, 1853, when they dissolved by mutual consent, and it was agreed that defendant should settle and arrange the business of said co-partnership, collect the debts, pay liabilities, &c., and account to the said Henry Williamson for all assets of every description which…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. The complaint in this case, set forth that the defendant and one Henry Williamson were engaged as partners in general business, for three years, prior to the 10th January, 1853, when they dissolved by mutual consent, and it was agreed that defendant should settle and arrange the business of said co-partnership, collect the debts, pay liabilities, &c., and account to the said Henry Williamson for all assets of every description which might come into his hands, and should arrange said business before April, 1853, and pay over to said Williamson, $15,000…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, Chief Justice
Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.
This action was brought for an account of partnership property, to restrain the defendant from further interfering or controlling it, and for the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all the assets of the concern.
The bill alleges waste, and improper application of moneys of the firm, &c.
■ It appears from the record, that the defendant, and one Henry William soil, had been engaged for some three years in various speculations and business; and on the dissolution of the partnership, it was agreed in writing, that Monroe should settle all the accounts,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bushman v. BushmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Irwin v. EversonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- Ingram v. Clover Leaf Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932