Kootz v. . Tuvian
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil ACTION, tried before StarbueJc, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1895, of DuitHAM Superior Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of Chief Justice EaiRclotii. There was judgment for the plaintiff and defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Faircloth, C. J.:
This is an action for possession of merchandise goods. The plaintiff claims to be the sole owner and that defendant was employed to attend to the business as a clerk and to receive for his services one-half ■of the net profits. The defendant contends that they were partners, and that one partner cannot maintain, for possession of the partnership property, an action against the other partner. The sole question is, Were they partners ? If so, the plaintiff, cannot recover; if not, he is entitled to recover.
Two issues were submitted : “ 1. Is the plaintiff the •owner of and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beecher v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Cassidy v. . HallNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Southern Fertilizer Co. v. ReamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Mauney v. . CoitSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
3Cited by10 opinions
- American Trust Co. v. Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Lance v. Butler.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Johnson Ex Rel. Dickson v. GillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Beasley v. BerryMontana Supreme Court · 1906
- Gurganus v. Greenville Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.