Kerrigan v. Kelly
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppectl from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The evidence establishes that there was a partnership. If so, one partner cannot sue another at law, situated as these were in reference to their accounts. Ohitty on Con. 286. 5 Mo. Rep. 112. 8 ib. 574. 10 Mo. Rep. 640.
1Opinion of the CourtSoott, Judge
1. This was an action under the code for money due on a promissory note, and for money advanced and due for other purposes. The answer of Kelly, the defendant, admitted the giving of the note, and that the advances were made ; but he alleges that they were made by the plaintiff with an understanding that they should be partners in the building of an ice house, and in carrying on the business of selling ice ; that this contract being incomplete, after a large portion of the money had been advanced, the agreement between the parties was so modified that they were only to be partners in the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Schierenberg v. StephensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Griesenauer v. Belleau Lake Development Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1967