Legal Opinion

Metcalf v. Officer & Pusey

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa

Decided July 1, 1880PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motion for new trial.

1Opinion of the Court

Nelson, D. J.

1. The first issue for the jury to determine —“Is Mrs. M. E. Mead a secret or dormant partner of the firm of A. Bernard & Co.?” — was fairly and properly submitted. I have reviewed the charge to the jury, and the testimony upon that issue, and find no error. While it is true that general reputation is not admissible, in aid of other testimony, to prove a partnership, yet, when the issue is of the character presented here, and the inquiry is whether a member of a partnership is a dormant partner, such general evidence is admissible.

The definition of a dormant partner sanctions…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Spence v. Lansing Automakers Federal Credit Union (In Re Satterla)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 1981
  2. North v. . BlossNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
  3. 951 Plymouth Restaurants, Inc. v. Pemberton Pub, Inc. (In Re Pemberton Pub, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 1981
  4. Hagar v. StoneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
  5. Glover v. Commercial National Bank of Little Rock (In Re Glover)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1982

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Metcalf v. OfficerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa · 1879

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

Powered by the Exa API