Watson v. Lovelace
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Benton District Cowrt. Action in chancery. The petition alleges that plaintiff William P. Watson and the defendants, on the 1st of December, 1813, entered into a written contract of copartnership to prosecute the business of fishing and shipping, selling and disposing of fish, to be prosecuted at some point or points, to be afterward selected, either in California, Oregon or Washington Territory.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Benton District Cowrt. Action in chancery. The petition alleges that plaintiff William P. Watson and the defendants, on the 1st of December, 1813, entered into a written contract of copartnership to prosecute the business of fishing and shipping, selling and disposing of fish, to be prosecuted at some point or points, to be afterward selected, either in California, Oregon or Washington Territory. The name and style-chosen for the partnership was The Columbia Salmon Company. The plaintiff was to contribute two thousand dollars to the capital of the company, the defendant Lovelace…
1Opinion of the Court
Beck, I.
I. We think the evidence fails to show that defendants did any acts in violation of the terms of the contract which would have the effect to dissolve the copartnership or authorize plaintiffs to regard the contract as abandoned by defendants. The plaintiffs rely upon defendants’ transaction with Norcott as a sufficient justification of the conclusion that they had abandoned the contract and formed a new copartnership. The evidence fails to support this portion of the allegations of plaintiffs’ petition, but does fully support the allegations of defendants’ answer. The transaction…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Harkins v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- Davison v. Davenport Gas-light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1868