Walker v. Whipple
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Washtenaw. (Speed, J.) Bill for accounting, etc. Complainant appeals. The duration of a partnership may be determined by all the facts and circumstances of its formation and the acts of the partners: Lindley on Partnership, 218-220 ; Parsons on Partnership, 415; Story on Part. §§84, 277; in case of a partnership at will, it may be dissolved at any time, but all subsisting engagements must be wound up, and the partnership continues for that purpose.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washtenaw. (Speed, J.) Bill for accounting, etc. Complainant appeals. The duration of a partnership may be determined by all the facts and circumstances of its formation and the acts of the partners: Lindley on Partnership, 218-220 ; Parsons on Partnership, 415; Story on Part. §§84, 277; in case of a partnership at will, it may be dissolved at any time, but all subsisting engagements must be wound up, and the partnership continues for that purpose. Peacock v. Peacock 16 Yes. 49; Grawshay v. Collins 15 Yes. 218; Featherstonhauffh v. Femoick 17 Yes. 298; Grawshay v. Maulé 1 Swanst.…
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
In this case it is conceded that the copartnership entered into was not limited by the express agreement of the parties. It was therefore determinable, in the absence of fraud, at the will of either party. I do not agree that a limitation may be ingrafted upon such a copartnership agreement by implication arising out of the business engaged in, or the circumstances of the case. It may be said that it is generally understood that such contract relations are not formed except with a view of engaging in some business which may require both time and capital to carry out the object for which the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Howell v. HarveySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1843
- Adams v. KableCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1846
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cole v. ColeMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Nichols v. MumfordMichigan Supreme Court · 1921