Tucker v. Judd
Hawaii Supreme Court
Bill in equity, with exhibit annexed, filed May 30th, 1868; process issued, returnable June 16th, before the Chancellor; answer filed September 19th; replication filed October 3. August 5, 1869, the respondents’ counsel moved to dismiss, for want of prosecution.
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, with exhibit annexed, filed May 30th, 1868; process issued, returnable June 16th, before the Chancellor; answer filed September 19th; replication filed October 3. August 5, 1869, the respondents’ counsel moved to dismiss, for want of prosecution. At the hearing of this motion, the complainants’ counsel argued that there had been no delay on their part, but that one of the complainants had died, and the delay was caused partly by that event, and partly by their efforts to resist the discharge of one of the executors. The respondents’ counsel agreeing thereto, and stipulating to…
1Opinion of the Court
Hartwell, J.:
The papers present some complication, but there are few unsettled points of law involved in the case, which require the judgment of the Court. The first point is whether Tucker and Waller were Metcalf’s partners, or his agents only, to be remunerated by shares in the profits. There has been a series of decisions in the English and United States courts, commencing with the leading case of Waugh vs. Carver, 2 H. Bl., 235, in 1789, to the effect that parties might become liable for each others’ acts as partners, contrary to their own intention or expressed agreement. If A and B…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Short & Co. v. Trabue & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
- Murdock v. . GiffordNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- House v. HouseNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
- Caldwell v. LeiberNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
- Reynolds v. ToppanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barnes v. CollinsHawaii Supreme Court · 1904
- In re the Estate of BishopHawaii Supreme Court · 1917
- Strohm v. WilsonHawaii Supreme Court · 1896