Dunham v. Gillis
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The plaintiff declares in covenant broken, upon the following indenture, viz.: — “ This indented agreement or mutual contract made between John M. Dunham, of, &c., John Gillis, of, &c., and Robert Harrington, of, &c., witnesseth that we, the subscribers, mutually agree to enter into partnership, in the manufactory of printing ink, to be carried on at Cambridgeport, upon the following conditions, viz.: The said J. M. Dunham to find suitable works to carry on the business,…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff declares in covenant broken, upon the following indenture, viz.: — “ This indented agreement or mutual contract made between John M. Dunham, of, &c., John Gillis, of, &c., and Robert Harrington, of, &c., witnesseth that we, the subscribers, mutually agree to enter into partnership, in the manufactory of printing ink, to be carried on at Cambridgeport, upon the following conditions, viz.: The said J. M. Dunham to find suitable works to carry on the business, together with his reasonable time, to superintend and make sale of said printing ink, and to receive one half of the net…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
This point is settled by the case of Tippet vs. Hawkey, (3) which was not cited in the argument. Here the consideration was several. The parties contributed severally and in different proportions to the joint stock. Their covenants were several, and each has his several remedy for a breach. The admission of the indenture in evidence at the trial was therefore Draper.
Let judgment he entered on the verdict.
2Cited by7 opinions
- State Street Trust Co. v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Hosack's Executors v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Wadsworth v. ManningCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Farwell v. WilcoxSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Stone v. WendoverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.