McElvey v. . Lewis
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, affirming a judgment entered upon an order of Special Term directing judgment on the pleadings. This action was brought for and the judgment adjudged a dissolution of a co-partnership between the parties, and for the appointment of a receiver. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. This was no case for the appointment of a receiver.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, affirming a judgment entered upon an order of Special Term directing judgment on the pleadings. This action was brought for and the judgment adjudged a dissolution of a co-partnership between the parties, and for the appointment of a receiver. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. This was no case for the appointment of a receiver. (9 How., 69; 7 id., 359; 10 id., 89; 1 Hill, 546; 9 Abb. Pr., 157; 59 Barb., 509; Whitaker v. Defosse, 7 Bosw., 678; Kennedy v. Shilton, 1 Hilt., 546; 2 Daly, 278;…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
The parties to this action on the 30th of September, 1876, became partners under written articles of agreement. Ho time is named for the continuance of the partnership, nor any provision made for the settlement of its concerns upon dissolution. It was therefore dissolvable at the will of either partner. (Story on Partnership, § 269.) In this instance, the plaintiff indicated by written notice his election to dissolve the partnership ; and as the defendant by his answer also asks that the articles of partnership bo canceled and vacated, it is not easy to see why ho appealed from so much of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Law v. FordNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wilcox v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Brush v. JayNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Driggs v. DriggsNew York Supreme Court · 1887
- Hubbell v. BuhlerNew York Supreme Court · 1887