Gray v. . Green
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made May 20, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. This action was brought in 1884, for an accounting of the partnership affairs of the firm of H. W. Gray & Co., which was composed of the plaintiff and defendant. The facts, so far as material, are stated in ’the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made May 20, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. This action was brought in 1884, for an accounting of the partnership affairs of the firm of H. W. Gray & Co., which was composed of the plaintiff and defendant. The facts, so far as material, are stated in ’the opinion. The action is barred ;by the Statute of Limitations. (Code Civ. Pro. § 288; 2 Lindley on Part. 964; Loder v. Hatfield, 71 N. Y. 92; Mills v. Mills, 115 id.…
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, J.
The only question presented for our consideration is whether the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the ¡Statute of Limitations. That the parties litigant were partners in 1870, that a dissolution by mutual consent occurred in the next year, and that plaintiff became by agreement the liquidating partner, are the fundamental facts about which there is no dispute. More than ten years after that dissolution this action was brought by the liquidating partner for an .accounting and payment of such balance as should be ascertained. The complaint alleges that upon the dissolution the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Gilmore v. . HamNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Gray v. . GreenNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Brooks v. CampbellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Gray v. GreenNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- Gilmore v. HamNew York Supreme Court · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.