Mickle v. Peet
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Account and general assumpsit; brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County. Tried to the court, before Be Forest, J., facts found, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and motion in error by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The plaintiff and defendant were partners in business. The partnership was dissolved by mutual consent August 29th, 1874. August 31st the parties met with their respective counsel, and examined and adjusted their respective accounts with the firm. It was then ascertained that the plaintiff had advanced, in excess of the defendant’s advancements, the sum of $304.06. A mistake subsequently discovered reduced this balance to $204.06. On the 9tli of September this suit was brought to recover one-half of this balance. The action is account and assumpsit joined. The plaintiff claimed to recover…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Day v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1855
3Cited by4 opinions
- Martin v. StubbingsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886
- Price v. DrewSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
- Bishop v. BishopSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1886
- Cole v. FowlerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896