Legal Opinion

Burnett v. Hopwood

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 12, 1932No. 28,915PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.

Plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff and defendant Hopwood became partners under an oral agreement in a stock and bond brokerage business in 1919. In 1922 defendant Davenport joined the firm, which continued under an oral agreement. On May 15, 1927, the three partners entered into a ivritten partnership contract.

When Davenport became a partner he paid $20,000, and Burnett and HopAvood, “having by mutual agreement of said [three] partners taken, each, the sum of $1,500 for their personal accounts, from the $20,000 then contributed and paid by said…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Clark v. State Street Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  2. Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Eastern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
  3. The Ohio Crane Co. v. HicksOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Whitcomb v. ConverseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  5. Love v. CouchSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Orme v. Atlas Gas and Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  2. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
  3. Simeone v. First Bank National Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992
  4. Bass v. DaetwylerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
  5. Petersen v. PetersenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969

3 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