Tozer v. Hershey
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the district court for Washington county, by Tozer & Schow as plaintiffs and partners, to recover for certain logs alleged to have been sold to the defendants Cover & Hershey as partners. The defendant Hershey answered, denying all the allegations of the complaint, except the allegation of the partnership of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
This action was brought in the district court for Washington county, by Tozer & Schow as plaintiffs and partners, to recover for certain logs alleged to have been sold to the defendants Cover & Hershey as partners. The defendant Hershey answered, denying all the allegations of the complaint, except the allegation of the partnership of the plaintiffs. Upon the trial of the action, the principal issue was the existence of a partnership between the defendants David Cover and Benjamin Hershey. The jury rendered a verdict for the whole amount claimed. The case is brought to this court upon an…
1Opinion of the CourtMcMillan, J.
By the Court The plaintiffs bring this action to recover the price of certain logs alleged to have been sold to the defendants.
Hershey denies each and every allegation of the complaint, excepting the averment of copartnership between the plaintiffs.
The only question litigated upon the trial was the existence of a partnership between the defendants. It was not denied by Hershey that the plaintiffs sold and delivered the logs sued for to Cover; nor did the plaintiffs claim that the *260defendants held themselves out as partners, or that they supposed at the time of the sale of the logs that they…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Whitney v. FerrisNew York Supreme Court · 1813
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rush v. FrenchArizona Supreme Court · 1874
- In Re Petition of S. R. A. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Colby v. StreetSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Wilson v. FairchildSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891