Tomlinson v. Ward
Supreme Court of Connecticut
in error. THIS was a bill in chancery, brought by Ward against Tomlinson, stating, that they were partners in trade, without limitation of time; that the co-partnership commenced in November 1797, and ended in July 1816; that the parties dealt largely in merchandize, &c. praying for an account before a committee, the appointment of persons to distribute the property, and a receiver to collect the debts.
Read the full summary
in error. THIS was a bill in chancery, brought by Ward against Tomlinson, stating, that they were partners in trade, without limitation of time; that the co-partnership commenced in November 1797, and ended in July 1816; that the parties dealt largely in merchandize, &c. praying for an account before a committee, the appointment of persons to distribute the property, and a receiver to collect the debts. As to the appointment of a receiver, the plaintiff stated, in general terms, that he was, on principles of equity, entitled to the interposition of the court, to appoint some meet person to be…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, Ch. J.
It appears, that Tomlinson, the plaintiff in error, borrowed money, on the credit of the company, to pay his private debts ; and then, without, the consent oí Ward, took money at an extra rate of interest to meet the payments ; which extra interest was charged to the company. I am of opinion, that he had no right to do this ; and that such extra interest was justly and properly charged to him.
In regard to the debt due -from -Victory Tomlinson, Tyler and Frost, it appears that the- defendant, (now plaintiff in *400error) remonstrated against tiic acceptance of the report of ⅛⅜»…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gypsy Oil Co. v. SchonwaldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Temple v. LawsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1857
- Markham v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Wilson v. MaddoxWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1899
- Vause v. WoodsMississippi Supreme Court · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.