Mullholland v. Patch

This bill was filed to obtain a copartnership accounting. Plaintiffs charge that they had an oral partnership agreement with defendant “to go out and get options on farms and sell them.” Defendant denies that any copartnership agreement existed between them. The conflicting claims of the parties were heard by the chancellor and he reached the conclusion that if there were a copartnership agreement it was an oral copartnership agreement to deal in real estate and therefore void under the holding of this court in Nester v. Sullivan, 147 Mich. 493 (9 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1106). The oral…