Pond v. Cummins
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Suit on a bond given by the defendants for property attached; brought to the Court of Common Pleas and tried, on a general denial, before Torrance, J. The following facts were found by the court:— On or about February 10th, 1881, the defendant Cummins applied to the defendant Bryan for assistance in money to enable him to start in business.
Read the full summary
Suit on a bond given by the defendants for property attached; brought to the Court of Common Pleas and tried, on a general denial, before Torrance, J. The following facts were found by the court:— On or about February 10th, 1881, the defendant Cummins applied to the defendant Bryan for assistance in money to enable him to start in business. Prior to that time Cummins and his brother, as co-partners, had been engaged in the saddlery and harness- business in New Haven. • They had -failed in business, and in the early part of 1881, and priorto February 10th, 1881, made an assignment in…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
This is an action by an officer on a receipt given for property attached. It was attached as the property of Cummins. The court found that it belonged to Bryan and rendered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed.
The claim is that Cummins had an interest in the property as a partner which was attachable. The claim is made upon the following facts:—Bryan furnished capital for carrying on the saddle and harness business. The business was to be carried on by Cummins, and in his name as agent for Bryan, and he was to receive one half of the profits. In about one month after the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pond v. CookeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
- Clark v. GaylordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
- Dayton v. MerrittSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1866
3Cited by2 opinions
- Greenhouse v. ZempskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Greenhouse v. ZempskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966