Plaut v. Marks
Hamilton Circuit Court
Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The question presented to us is whether the superior court erred in sustaining a demurrer, filed by Marks, the plaintiff below, to the answer filed by the defendant below to the plaintiff’s petition.
The petition averred, in substance, that on and before November 27, 1893, the plaintiff and defendant were .partners in the shoe business under the firm name of Plaut & Marks, and on the day named they agreed in writing to put an end to their partnership on or before January 1,1894; that an inventory should be taken of all the assets of the partnership, and the debts, credits and liabilities…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wheadon v. OldsNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Stolz v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Devine v. EdwardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- People Ex Rel. Commercial Mutual Insurance v. Tax CommissionersNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Moors v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lane-Lott v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2013