Cammack v. Johnson
New Jersey Court of Chancery
The complainant’s bill, filed on the 24th of February, 1838, charges, that the complainant and William Johnson, jun., in May, 1833, ¡entered into partnership in the business of manufacturing leather, in the city of Newark. By the terms of the partnership, they were to be equal partners and sharers in the profits of said business, and equally liable W all losses. The business was to be conducted in the name of William Johnson, jun.
Read the full summary
The complainant’s bill, filed on the 24th of February, 1838, charges, that the complainant and William Johnson, jun., in May, 1833, ¡entered into partnership in the business of manufacturing leather, in the city of Newark. By the terms of the partnership, they were to be equal partners and sharers in the profits of said business, and equally liable W all losses. The business was to be conducted in the name of William Johnson, jun. The partnership continued up till the time of filing the bill, and became liable for a large amount of debts contracted by the partnership, which are entitled to be…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This is a motion in behalf of the defendants, Stoutenburgh, Day and Co., to dissolve the injunction heretofore issued in this cause, and to vacate the order appointing receivers. The questions which arise on this motion are important in themselves, and must have, in any result to which I may come, a strong bearing on the rights of the parties; I feel it my duty, therefore, to state fully the grounds of my opinion.
The injunction was granted upon the case made by the hill alone. By that, the1 complainant and William Johnson, junior, were stated to be partners in the manufacture…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mead v. Merritt & PeckNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Moody v. PayneNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- Rodgers v. RodgersNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
3Cited by1 opinion
- In Re Judges in ChanceryNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927