Hunt v. Erikson
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Mecosta. (Fuller, J.) Bill for partnership accounting. Complainant appeals. It is not necessary in order to constitute a partnership that there be an express agreement that each party shall bear a share of any losses which may occur in the business; this may be inferred from the other provisions of the contract and the nature of the business, and the relation of the parties to the business to be transacted : Richards v. GrimneTl 63 la. 44 ; it is no objection…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mecosta. (Fuller, J.) Bill for partnership accounting. Complainant appeals. It is not necessary in order to constitute a partnership that there be an express agreement that each party shall bear a share of any losses which may occur in the business; this may be inferred from the other provisions of the contract and the nature of the business, and the relation of the parties to the business to be transacted : Richards v. GrimneTl 63 la. 44 ; it is no objection that the parties participate in the gross earnings instead of the net profits : Eastman v. Clark 53 N. H. 276: 16 Am. Bep.…
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
The bill is filed in this case to wind up a partnership. Complainant states that he entered into a partnership agreement with the defendant, the terms and conditions of which were stated in said bill as follows:
“ Your orator undertook and agreed to lookup and discover valuable and desirable pieces or parcels of land in said county of Mecosta, on which the taxes were unpaid, and at the sale of such lands for such delinquent taxes as was or should be provided by the law of this State, your orator agreed and undertook to bid on and purchase the same, and to procure good and proper deeds from the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wells v. BabcockMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by1 opinion
- Canton Bridge Co. v. City of Eaton RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1895