Atherton v. Whitcomb
Supreme Court of Vermont
Bill to wind up a partnership. Heard upon a master’s report at the December term, 1893, Windsor county. Start, chancellor, decreed partition of the assets, denying that the orator should be charged with interest. The defendant appeals. A partner, withdrawing more than his copartner from the-firm assets, should be charged with interest. Hodges v. Parker, 17 Vt. 242; Beacham v. Eckford, 2 Sandf.
Read the full summary
Bill to wind up a partnership. Heard upon a master’s report at the December term, 1893, Windsor county. Start, chancellor, decreed partition of the assets, denying that the orator should be charged with interest. The defendant appeals. A partner, withdrawing more than his copartner from the-firm assets, should be charged with interest. Hodges v. Parker, 17 Vt. 242; Beacham v. Eckford, 2 Sandf. Ch. 116; Johnson v. Hartshorne, 52 N. Y. 173. A partner is not chargeable with interest on balances due the firm in the absence of fraud. Meymott v. Meymott, 31 Beav. 445 ; Cooke v. Benbow, 3 DeG. J. &…
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.
This is a bill to dissolve and settle the ■affairs of a partnership that has long existed between the parties. The defendant was the bookkeeper and cashier of the firm, and both had access to the books at all times, and made entries thereon from time to time. Neither putin any ■capital at the time the partnership was formed, but the business was commenced and continued on the credit of the firm. Each drew out from time to time as he pleased, with the knowledge and consent of the other. They drew in all about equal amounts, and what they drew was duly entered on the books of the firm; but the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hodges v. ParkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- McCormick v. McCormickNebraska Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Shulkin v. ShulkinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938