L. P. Waite & Co. v. Dodge
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. Among other things the auditor reported as follows: “ I find that the plaintiffs were partners under the firm ofL.
Read the full summary
Book Account. Among other things the auditor reported as follows: “ I find that the plaintiffs were partners under the firm ofL. P. Waite & Co., doing business at Weston in this State, and that from the spring of 1853, before any of the items of said account accrued, up to July, 1854, one A. W. Pierce was also a partner in the said firm of L. P. Waite & Co., that he assisted in the store of the firm in buying and selling goods and produce, but that his name was not used or known in- the business of the firm. I also find that A. L. Waite, one of the plaintiffs, ceased to have any actual…
1Opinion of the Court
Aldis J.
The defendants claim that the' plaintiffs can not recover any portion of their accounts, because A. W. Pierce was an active partner of the plaintiffs’ firm when the first part of the account accrued, and should have been joined in a suit on that portion of the account ; and that A.’L. Waite, one of the plaintiffs, was not a partner when the rest of the account accrued, and therefore that a suit for that part of the account should be in the name of L. P. Waite alone.
1. We think A. W. Pierce is to be regarded as a dormant partner. “ His name was not known or used in the business of *183the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sparhawk v. Administrator of Ozias BuellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
3Cited by3 opinions
- Platt v. Iron Exchange BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Amey v. Vermont Products Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1935
- Perry v. JaquithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913