Scott v. Pinkerton
New York Court of Chancery
Bill alleging a partnership, as paviors, between the com-» plainant and defendant. The defendant admitted a partnership to a certain extent; but denied any thing was due from him on account of it. Indeed, so far from it, he insisted that a large balance was owing from the complainant to him. The cause came up on bill, answer and proofs.
Read the full summary
Bill alleging a partnership, as paviors, between the com-» plainant and defendant. The defendant admitted a partnership to a certain extent; but denied any thing was due from him on account of it. Indeed, so far from it, he insisted that a large balance was owing from the complainant to him. The cause came up on bill, answer and proofs. Mr. Bulkley, for the defendant, insisted that the bill should be dismissed, because it denied every allegation of the bill, especially as to any thing being due to the complainant, and was not disproved.
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice Chancellor :
The bill proceeds on the ground of a general partnership between the complainant and the defendant as paviors in the city of New-York, from about the month of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two until the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine ; and calls for a settlement of the partnership accounts. The answer denies a general partnership, but admits the defendant let the complainant into a partnership in”particular jobs or contracts, which he, the defendant, took and entered into with the corporation of the city of New York from time to time, and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cooper v. CooperMississippi Supreme Court · 1884
- Hooley v. GieveNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878
- Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. WisnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Lyman v. LymanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · 1829
- Raymond v. CameSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1864