Bacon, McClardy & Co. v. Hutchings, Duncan & Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 58 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. CITED— 2 Met., 525 ; Daniel vs. Toney. 4 Busk, 19 ; Hikes vs. Crawford Sf Long. Civil Code, secs. 671, 672 ; 15 B. Mon., 641. 18 B. Mon., 94; Easley’s ex’r vs. Easley. 18 B. Mon:, 128; Todd vs. Luckctt. 2 Met., 609; MillcLt vs. Parker, fyc.
Read the full summary
CASE 58 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. CITED— 2 Met., 525 ; Daniel vs. Toney. 4 Busk, 19 ; Hikes vs. Crawford Sf Long. Civil Code, secs. 671, 672 ; 15 B. Mon., 641. 18 B. Mon., 94; Easley’s ex’r vs. Easley. 18 B. Mon:, 128; Todd vs. Luckctt. 2 Met., 609; MillcLt vs. Parker, fyc. Story on Partnership, sees. 14, 15, 325, 327. CITED— CoUyer on Partnership, secs. 118, 121, 540, 541, 199, 533. Story on Partnership, see. 322. 11 B. Mon., 120; Kennedy vs. Bohannon. 16 B. Mon., 355; Merritt vs. PoIIys, Syc.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Williams
delivered tiie omnion op the court:
The firm of Downing S&Duncan dissolved February 8, 1865, having on hand nine hogsheads of tobacco of their own, and twelve belonging to English & Rogers, on .commission. Downing & Duncan, together with Hutchings and Weaver, associated as a new firm, under the style of Hutchings, Duncan & Co., February 22, 1865. A few days thereafter, the new firm being in want of funds, Duncan & Hutchings, without the consent or knowledge of Downing, shipped all of said tobacco to appellants at New York, and drew upon them-at ninety days for six thousand dollars, in the name…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hikes v. Crawford & LongCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1868
3Cited by2 opinions
- Terrell v. RowlandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
- Downing v. BaconCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1870