Curry v. Windsor.
Arizona Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. E. C. Stanford, Judge. STATEMENT OE EACTS. For some time prior to December 6, 1916, W. E. Curry, A. W. Wright, and William C. Windsor were partners, engaged in the grocery and produce business at Wiekenburg, Arizona, under the firm name of Wickenburg Grocery & Produce Company.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. E. C. Stanford, Judge. STATEMENT OE EACTS. For some time prior to December 6, 1916, W. E. Curry, A. W. Wright, and William C. Windsor were partners, engaged in the grocery and produce business at Wiekenburg, Arizona, under the firm name of Wickenburg Grocery & Produce Company. On said sixth day of December, 1916, the partnership was dissolved and a settlement of partnership affairs made between the partners according to the terms of a written agreement whereby Wright and Windsor each conveyed to Curry his one-third…
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, J.
(After Stating- the Facts as Above.) — There must be a new trial in this case. The legal effect of the agreement entered into by the parties was to dissolve the partnership and settle the partnership affairs as between them. No other rational interpretation can be put upon the agreement. When two or more members of which a firm is composed settle their partnership affairs and dissolve the partnership, if one of the partners is defrauded in the settlement, the law furnishes him with the choice between two remedies; he may rescind the settlement, or bring- an action on the case for deceit. If…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Lutfy v. R. D. Roper & Sons Motor Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1941
- Southwest Cotton Co. v. RyanArizona Supreme Court · 1921
- Waddell v. WhiteArizona Supreme Court · 1940
- Waddell v. WhiteArizona Supreme Court · 1941
- City of Phoenix v. WadeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1967
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.