Hall v. Sannoner
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. The August contract is plain and unambiguous; there is no room for construction; it means just what it says ; no latitude or discretion is given to either party in the matter of making new accounts or giving credit, and if either partner sold or gave credit without the knowledge and consent of the other, he did so at his own peril, whether he thought or had reason to believe the customers were solvent and…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. The August contract is plain and unambiguous; there is no room for construction; it means just what it says ; no latitude or discretion is given to either party in the matter of making new accounts or giving credit, and if either partner sold or gave credit without the knowledge and consent of the other, he did so at his own peril, whether he thought or had reason to believe the customers were solvent and prompt paying or not. A partner is not liable to his copartner for a loss caused by an honest mistake of judgment, unless…
1Opinion of the Court
Cookrill, C. .T.
Sannoner and Hall were partners in a general wholesale and retail grocery business. In August, 1880, they entered into arrangements looking to a dissolution of the copartnership on the first of the following January. In the meantime the business was to continue as before, except that a limit was placed on the mode of giving credit to customers; and it was arranged that Sannoner should buy Hall’s interest in the firm in January. When the time for dissolution came, the parties disagreed about the terms of settlement, and Sannoner brought an equitable action against Hall to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Caldwell v. LeiberNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Morgan v. Child, Cole & Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1916
- Holdridge v. McKewenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913