Gardner v. Conn
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Coui’t of Brown county. Robert Conn, John P. Helbling, John Henry, James M-Manning, James P. Mooney, and J. W. and E. M. Gardner, on the 10th day of November, 1871, entered into a partnership, for the purpose of carrying on the business of packing pork, “ for the then ensuing pork season.” The first five named were interested to the extent of one-sixth, each, and the two last named, together one-sixth. The firm lost money in the venture.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Coui’t of Brown county. Robert Conn, John P. Helbling, John Henry, James M-Manning, James P. Mooney, and J. W. and E. M. Gardner, on the 10th day of November, 1871, entered into a partnership, for the purpose of carrying on the business of packing pork, “ for the then ensuing pork season.” The first five named were interested to the extent of one-sixth, each, and the two last named, together one-sixth. The firm lost money in the venture. The original action was brought in the court of common pleas, in April, 1873, by Conn, Helbling, and Henry against the Gardners to…
1Opinion of the CourtGilmore, J.
If the bank had brought an action, on the notes mentioned in the agreed statement of facts, against the firm of Conn, Helbling & Co., or if the plaintiffs, claiming to be subrogated to the rights of the bank under the notes, had brought an action against the Gardners thereon, it may be conceded that in neither case would the latter have been liable on the notes; for it sufficiently appears in the agreed statement, that the notes were executed after the dissolution of the partnership, without the knowledge or consent of the Gardners.
After dissolution, a co-partner is not authorized, in the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lockwood v. ComstockU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan · 1848
- Ex parte ElliottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Mason v. WickershamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842