Henn v. Walsh
New York Court of Chancery
Bill to dissolve the co-partnership and for an account. An injunction had been granted. The defendant put in his answer. Cross motions now came before the court: one, on the part of the complainant, for a receiver; and, the other, by the .-defendant, to dissolve the injunction. The co-partnership had commenced on the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three ; and was to continue for five years.
Read the full summary
Bill to dissolve the co-partnership and for an account. An injunction had been granted. The defendant put in his answer. Cross motions now came before the court: one, on the part of the complainant, for a receiver; and, the other, by the .-defendant, to dissolve the injunction. The co-partnership had commenced on the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three ; and was to continue for five years. By the agreement between the co-partners, an inventory was to be made at the end of two year's 4 and if either were then dissatisfied, he was to have liberty to dissolve the firm.…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
A partnership agreement, like any other, is binding upon the parties; and they must adhere to its terms. Neither partner is at liberty to recede from it against the will of the other, without a sufficient cause. Mere dissatisfaction by one partner will not justify him in filing a bill for a dissolution where, by their express agreement, it is to continue for a definite term ; and this court will not interfere to dissolve the contract upon such ground. Here, there was a five years partnership, with the privilege of dissolving it at the end of two years. The complainant has…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hannaman v. KarrickUtah Supreme Court · 1893
- Sweeny v. MayhewIdaho Supreme Court · 1899
- Allen v. Dallas & W. R.United States Circuit Court · 1878
- Quinlivan v. EnglishSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
- Josephthal v. GoldNew York Supreme Court · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.