Legal Opinion

Bradley v. Chamberlin

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 15, 1844PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and an auditor was appointed .to .take the accounts of the parties. The parties had been partners in trade, the defendant being the active partner, and this action was brought for the liquidation of the partnership accounts. There was no question made as to the amount of the plaintiff’s account. In reference to the defendant’s account the auditor reported as follows.

Read the full summary

Account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and an auditor was appointed .to .take the accounts of the parties. The parties had been partners in trade, the defendant being the active partner, and this action was brought for the liquidation of the partnership accounts. There was no question made as to the amount of the plaintiff’s account. In reference to the defendant’s account the auditor reported as follows. The parties, on the third day of May, 1828, formed a co-partnership, under written articles expressed to be for one year, which contained this provision ; “said…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

The defendant claims, upon the settlement of the partnership, that he should be allowed a reasonable compensation for his services the second year. By the articles of co-partnership, which was entered into for a single year, it was provided, that, if the firm made no profits, the defendant should not be entitled to compensation for his personal services. After the expiration of the year the parties continued their mercantile business by mutual consent, without any thing being said as to the terms upon which it should be continued. ' Of…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mason v. SieglitzSupreme Court of Colorado · 1896
  2. Faggelle v. MarennaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
  3. Sangston v. HackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1879
  4. Tillotson v. TillotsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1867
  5. In re MarxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API