Meguiar v. Helm
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 3 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE LAW AN.D EQUITY COURT. Where the terms of a partnership, being in parol, are doubtful, either in language or construction, the conduct of the partners in carrying on the business and the entries upon the books will largely influence the court in determining the true meaning and effect of the partnership agreement.
Read the full summary
Case 3 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE LAW AN.D EQUITY COURT. Where the terms of a partnership, being in parol, are doubtful, either in language or construction, the conduct of the partners in carrying on the business and the entries upon the books will largely influence the court in determining the true meaning and effect of the partnership agreement. (2 Bate on Partnership, secs. 978, 981; 1 Bates on Partnership, sec. 215; Moore v. Treivier, 31 Ark., 113.) To work an estoppel against a particular construction, it is not necessary that the party should have knowingly misled. He…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion oe the court.
In tlie month, of January, in the year 1877, the appellant, P. Meguiar, and the appellee, John L. Helm, together with W. M. Wilson, entered into a verbal agreement by which they became partners, under the style of Meguiar, Helm & Co., in the operation of a tobacco warehouse in the city of Louisville for the sale of tobacco. Helm and Wilson had, previous to this agreement, been engaged in the same business with a firm called Ronald, Webb & Co., that firm composed of Ronald, Webb, Helm and Wilson. This last firm was unfortunate in business, and its…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Louisville v. Tatum, Embry & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901
- Lanham v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1935