Moors v. Bigelow
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, filed in the Superior Court, alleging, as amended, the following facts. On March 15, 1888, the plaintiff formed with the defendant a copartnership, under the style of “ The Advisory Investment Company, John F. Moors and Prescott Bigelow, Managers,” for the purpose of doing business as brokers of stocks and bonds; and on or about February 6, 1889, the style of the firm was changed to “ Moors and Bigelow.”
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, filed in the Superior Court, alleging, as amended, the following facts. On March 15, 1888, the plaintiff formed with the defendant a copartnership, under the style of “ The Advisory Investment Company, John F. Moors and Prescott Bigelow, Managers,” for the purpose of doing business as brokers of stocks and bonds; and on or about February 6, 1889, the style of the firm was changed to “ Moors and Bigelow.” All the capital of the firm was furnished by the plaintiff, the defendant furnishing a seat on the stock exchange. ' On or about J une 6, 1888, the defendant borrowed from the…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The principal question that arises on this appeal is whether there was evidence to sustain a finding that would warrant the decree which was entered. The evidence is reported at length, and the judge rightly found from it an understanding or agreement of the parties that their settlement of the affairs of the copartnership should be made on the basis of a payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of the balance due, as shown by a proper adjustment of all the accounts on the books of the firm. The evidence tended to show that $344.58 was paid over as that balance, and that an item of $2,250 in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Torrao v. CoxMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988
- Bowker v. TorreyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Ward v. WardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
- Plaut v. MarksHamilton Circuit Court · 1895
- Plaut v. MarksOhio Circuit Courts · 1895