Townsend v. Auger
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bjll in chancery, praying for an account. The bill stated, that on the 26th of March, 1814, Isaac Townsend, the plaintiff, Hezekiah Auger, jun., the defendant, and Eldad Atwater, entered into copartnership, in the purchase and vending of merchandize, under the firm of Auger, Atwater & Co. with a capital stock of 6500 dollars; that the business was continued under that firm, until the 9th of January, 1815, when it was, by mutual consent, dissolved, Atwater…
Read the full summary
This was a bjll in chancery, praying for an account. The bill stated, that on the 26th of March, 1814, Isaac Townsend, the plaintiff, Hezekiah Auger, jun., the defendant, and Eldad Atwater, entered into copartnership, in the purchase and vending of merchandize, under the firm of Auger, Atwater & Co. with a capital stock of 6500 dollars; that the business was continued under that firm, until the 9th of January, 1815, when it was, by mutual consent, dissolved, Atwater withdrawing from it; that the plaintiff and defendant purchased Atwater^s share of the stock, amounting to 2000 dollars, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
I should have no doubt had this enquiry been made at an early stage of the proceeding, that Kneeland Townsend ought to have been made a party, as well to prevent future litigation, as to settle, at a stroke, the rights of all concerned. It is not necessary that he should have been a co-partner with Auger. Chancery will usually cause all persons principally interested to be made parties, to do complete justice, by embracing the whole subject, and settling the rights of all persons concerned in the matter of the suit; and thus making the decree of the court perfectly safe to those…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Schwoerer v. Boylston Market Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- City Trust Co. v. BulkleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
- Lott v. BrahamWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1922
- West v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1850