Lundell v. Cheney
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, Gustave Lundell, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Hooker, J., made'March 16, 1892, refusing a new trial. Gustave Lundell and Peter Osander, in January, 1876, formed a partnership for the purpose of conducting a general plumbing business in Minneapolis. They did business as such partners under the name of Peter Osander & Co. until June, 1889, when Osander died.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, Gustave Lundell, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Hooker, J., made'March 16, 1892, refusing a new trial. Gustave Lundell and Peter Osander, in January, 1876, formed a partnership for the purpose of conducting a general plumbing business in Minneapolis. They did business as such partners under the name of Peter Osander & Co. until June, 1889, when Osander died. Each of the partners had an equal interest in the property, but there never was an accounting. William Cheney was appointed administrator of the estate of Osander. This action was brought by…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This action was brought for an accounting and settlement of the partnership business carried on by plaintiff and defendant’s intestate from January, 1876, to the death of the latter in June, 1889. The case was, by consent, referred to a referee to try all the issues, and to report a judgment thereon.
The partners never had any accounting or settlement of their affairs in the thirteen or fourteen years during which they were in business together. Their books of account, which were mainly kept by or under the supervision of Osander, were exceedingly incomplete and inaccurate, rendering it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoit v. McIntireSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Prior Lake State Bank v. National Surety Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957