Stoughton v. Lynch
New York Court of Chancery
THIS was a bill for an account between the parties, as partners in trade. The articles of copartnership were dated the 10th of March, 1783, both parties then residing in the United Netherlands. By these articles, the parties agreed to establish a trading house at New-York ; and the plaintiff was to proceed to New-York, for that purpose, as soon as possible, after the 1st of May, ensuing.
Read the full summary
THIS was a bill for an account between the parties, as partners in trade. The articles of copartnership were dated the 10th of March, 1783, both parties then residing in the United Netherlands. By these articles, the parties agreed to establish a trading house at New-York ; and the plaintiff was to proceed to New-York, for that purpose, as soon as possible, after the 1st of May, ensuing. The partnership was to continue for seven years after the plaintiff’s arrival in New-York, and then six months after notice of separation. The plaintiff was to be the active partner, or to take the labouring…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The articles of copartnership intended to preserve, in a state of progressive accumulation, the funds of the house; and the clause upon which the question before me has arisen, is to be taken strictly. This is evidently the sense and spirit of the agreement. It is expressly stipulated, that the capital and profits of the company were to remain in the house, and to be employed for the benefit of the concern, during the partnership, with this special exception, that such part only was to be withdrawn, as might be necessary for private expenses. And to show the care with which the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Pomeroy v. BentonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Kittredge v. LangleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Love v. CarpenterIndiana Supreme Court · 1868
- Dimond v. HendersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Lyman v. LymanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · 1829
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.