Fish v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Vermont
Bill in chancery. Heard upon a master’s report and the pleadings at the March term, 1895, Rutland county. Thompson, Chancellor, decreed pro forma for the orator.. The defendants appeal.
Read the full summary
Bill in chancery. Heard upon a master’s report and the pleadings at the March term, 1895, Rutland county. Thompson, Chancellor, decreed pro forma for the orator.. The defendants appeal. The orator alleged in substance that the defendant Thompson and one Freeman were partners in a mercantile business, and that he had become liable for Freeman to a considerable amount on account of the capital which Freeman originally had in the business ; that for the purpose of securing him, Freeman executed, in April, 1892, to the orator a. chattel mortgage of his interest in the partnership stock; • that…
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.
It is manifest that the bill cannot be maintained against the defendants Tuttle and Slason, for the allegations relied upon for relief against them are negatived by the findings of the master. Nor do these findings show that the orator and the defendant Thompson were partners, as the latter claims. Thompson and Freeman were partners in business. The orator signed with Freeman for money that went into the concern, - and becoming. . alarmed lest he should lose thereby, *279he consulted Thompson about the matter, and thereupon procured a chattel mortgage and an assignment from Freeman of his entire…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Deavitt v. HookerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901
- Brandt v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904