Cole v. Cole
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Cnaigbead Chancery Court; N. F. Lamb, Special Chancellor; T.be ordinary rule is not disputed that one partner can not charge 'another for services rendered the partnership unlesis by special agreement; but there are exceptions to this rule which ¡are well recognized, ¡as that Where it can be fairly and justly implied from the course ¡of dealing between the partners, or from circumstances of equivalent force, that one partner is to be compensated for his services,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cnaigbead Chancery Court; N. F. Lamb, Special Chancellor; T.be ordinary rule is not disputed that one partner can not charge 'another for services rendered the partnership unlesis by special agreement; but there are exceptions to this rule which ¡are well recognized, ¡as that Where it can be fairly and justly implied from the course ¡of dealing between the partners, or from circumstances of equivalent force, that one partner is to be compensated for his services, his claim therefor will be sustained. 24 N. W. 129; 49 N. W. 846; 5 1. W. 243, 251. It was within the scope of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellee Gr. B. Cole, by his guardian, commenced this suit on November 9, 1910, to dissolve the copartnership known as the Jonesboro Wagon & Manufacturing Co., iand to distribute its assets. This copartnership was formed on January 1, 1902, 'and was then composed of appellee, who owned one-half interest, and of Y. A. Cole, Sr., and Y. A. Cole, Jr., who each owned one-fourth interest. Y. A. Cole, Sr., iand Y. A. Cole, Jr., were father .an son, and Y. A. Ooile, Sr., was the uncle of appellee, Gr. B. Cole. The business wias operated by these partners without 'any contract or understanding as to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pierce v. ScottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- Haller v. WillamowiczSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1861
3Cited by2 opinions
- Batson v. DrummondSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Drummond v. BatsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924