Farrar v. Pearson
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
OjN EXCEPTIONS. Account against the defendant as “ receiver of moneys of the plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs proved that in the winter and spring of 1867, they and the defendant were partners in the hunting business, each being entitled to the profits and liable to the losses; that they killed several moose, some of which the defendant sold and received the money for; that the defendant collected an order of $ 108 and various other moneys belonging to tbe firm, amount not known…
Read the full summary
OjN EXCEPTIONS. Account against the defendant as “ receiver of moneys of the plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs proved that in the winter and spring of 1867, they and the defendant were partners in the hunting business, each being entitled to the profits and liable to the losses; that they killed several moose, some of which the defendant sold and received the money for; that the defendant collected an order of $ 108 and various other moneys belonging to tbe firm, amount not known ; that the defendant told Farrar he would pay him as soon as he had the money, and told Webber (the other plaintiff)…
1Opinion of the CourtAppleton, C. J.
This is an action of account. “Account render,” observes Gibson, J., in Geary v. Cunningham, 10 S. & R. 230, “ is at best but a clumsy remedy, and so greatly inferior to a bill in equity, that it is in England abandoned altogether.” It is, however, still retained in this State.
At the trial at nisi prius, the presiding justice rendered the interlocutory judgment, quod computet, to which exceptions were taken. The question presented is whether the plaintiff^, upon the evidence produced, were entitled to this judgment.
The plaintiffs and defendant -were partners. There has been no adjustment of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Beach v. HotchkissSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
3Cited by1 opinion
- G. Wormser & Co. v. LindauerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1897