Monroe v. Conner
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Pehham J. presiding. * Assumpsit against James Conner and William Coleman. Conner lived at Gardiner, and owned a carding and fulling will at Unity. The business of carding wool and dressing cloth, was carried on at that mill by Coleman, and the articles charged were furnished by the plaintiff, and delivered at the mill.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Pehham J. presiding. * Assumpsit against James Conner and William Coleman. Conner lived at Gardiner, and owned a carding and fulling will at Unity. The business of carding wool and dressing cloth, was carried on at that mill by Coleman, and the articles charged were furnished by the plaintiff, and delivered at the mill. The plaintiff claimed to recover against both, on the ground, that Conner and Coleman were partners in the business carried on at that mill. No articles of copartnership were produced, or proved to have been made, and the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
After advisement, the opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Shepeey J.
The question presented in this bill of exceptions is one of no inconsiderable importance in a mercantile community, and there is found to be some difference of opinion respecting it. *180The general rule is, that the contract of one partner binds all, in transactions relating to the partnership ; and this rule prevails, when the partner making the contract applies the fruits of it to his own private use, if the contract, is made in the usual course of business, and the appropriation be unknown to the other party to the contract.…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Lunt v. Van GordenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1938
- O. L. Standard Dry Goods Co. v. HaleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
- Lichenstein v. MurphreeAlabama Court of Appeals · 1913
- California Canning Peach Growers v. Bardell & OregoniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Dinkelspeel v. LewisWyoming Supreme Court · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.