Legal Opinion

A. N. Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. Farrell

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1886PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Error to Pike Circuit Court.— Hon. Elijah Robinfon, Judge. (1) The definition of a partnership contained in the instructions given for the defendant and by the court of its own motion, is erroneous as applied to the facts of this case. The cases of Donnell v. Harshe, 67 Mo. 170, and Musser v. Brink, 68 Mo. 242, were all cases of partnership inter sese and not, as in the case at bar, one of such a relation as to third persons, or by operation of law.

Read the full summary

Error to Pike Circuit Court.— Hon. Elijah Robinfon, Judge. (1) The definition of a partnership contained in the instructions given for the defendant and by the court of its own motion, is erroneous as applied to the facts of this case. The cases of Donnell v. Harshe, 67 Mo. 170, and Musser v. Brink, 68 Mo. 242, were all cases of partnership inter sese and not, as in the case at bar, one of such a relation as to third persons, or by operation of law. (2) The power to sell the partnership property is not the conclusive test of the existence or non-existence of the partnership relation. Story on…

1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.

Defendant, Farrell, entered - into the following agreement with his co-defendant, Lindenbersrer. viz:

*596“This agreement ?nade and entered into this sixth day of February, 1882, between John Farrell, of the first part, and C. Lindenberger, of the second part, witnesseth that the party of .the first part this day turns over to the party of the second part the ‘ Post-Observer ’ newspaper, to be by the party of the second part conducted in every respect as' if he were the owner thereof. The party of the second part agrees to conduct the business in his own name, to pay all expenses attending the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Donnell v. HarsheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
  2. McDonald v. MatneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
  3. Musser v. BrinkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  4. Ashby v. ShawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Torbert v. JeffreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
  2. Thompson v. HoldenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  3. Vanderhurst, Sanborn, & Co. v. De WittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Nugent v. Armour Packing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
  5. Bernard McMenamy Contractor, Inc. v. KitchenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API