Woodward-Holmes Co. v. Nudd
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, the Woodward-Holmes Co., a manufacturing corporation, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Saagrave Smith, J., entered February 21, 1894. The defendant, William H. Nudd, and one Herbert A. Holmes were partners in business, and purchased lots three, five, six and seven in block forty three in Cummings & Broots Addition to St. Anthony Falls.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, the Woodward-Holmes Co., a manufacturing corporation, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Saagrave Smith, J., entered February 21, 1894. The defendant, William H. Nudd, and one Herbert A. Holmes were partners in business, and purchased lots three, five, six and seven in block forty three in Cummings & Broots Addition to St. Anthony Falls. They paid for this real estate out of the capital of the copartnership, and took a warranty deed thereof in which they were named grantees. They constructed a factory upon the property, and carried on their…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The effect of the findings of the trial court is that the real estate which is the subject of this action was formerly the property of a manufacturing copartnership composed of defendant’s husband and one Holmes, having been purchased, paid for, and used by the firm as a site for its manufacturing plant, the title being taken in the individual names of the partners; that, in an action brought by one partner against his copartner to dissolve the partnership and wind up its affairs, the property was ordered sold as one parcel, the proceeds to be applied in payment of the firm debts, and the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Coolidge v. BurkeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
- Clark v. FleischmannNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Wootten v. Oklahoma Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Bennett v. BennettCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Kennedy v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.