Gleason v. Van Aernam
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Umatilla. The facts are stated in the opinion. A court of equity has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of this suit, because the complaint shows that the partnership had been dissolved, and the accounts and business of the firm adjusted. The partnership being dissolved, and the property divided by mutual contract, it ceased to be partnership property, and all remedies in relation to it are at law, and not in equity. (1 Story’s Eq.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Umatilla. The facts are stated in the opinion. A court of equity has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of this suit, because the complaint shows that the partnership had been dissolved, and the accounts and business of the firm adjusted. The partnership being dissolved, and the property divided by mutual contract, it ceased to be partnership property, and all remedies in relation to it are at law, and not in equity. (1 Story’s Eq. Jur., 528.) If any mistake had been made in the settlement, it could not be corrected in this suit, as it was not instituted to falsify or surcharge…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Watson, J.:
This suit was commenced in the circuit court for Umatilla county, to obtain a settlement of partnership accounts, to enforce certain agreements entered into by the partners in regard to portions of the property which had belonged to the firm at the time of the dissolution, and to establish a vendor’s lien.
The complaint alleges the formation of the partnership, October 15, 1875, by the parties hereto; its continuance until February 14, 1878, and its dissolution at the latter date by mutual agreement. It further states, that at. the time of dissolution, the plaintiff…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Simpson v. SimpsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984