Pennoyer v. David
Michigan Supreme Court
Questions reserved from Wayne Circuit. The action was brought against James I. David and James Campbell, as survivors, &o. of Daniel C. Vreeland, who together, during the summer of 1855, constituted a partnership, which was dissolved by the death of Vreeland, in November of that year.
Read the full summary
Questions reserved from Wayne Circuit. The action was brought against James I. David and James Campbell, as survivors, &o. of Daniel C. Vreeland, who together, during the summer of 1855, constituted a partnership, which was dissolved by the death of Vreeland, in November of that year. The declaration was upon an account stated, to prove which “plaintiff offered evidence that in December, 1855, after the dissolution of the firm by the death of Vreeland, defendant Campbell accounted with plaintiff, and admitted that there was a final balance of $507 due tbe plaintiff. Various items entered into…
1Opinion of the Court
Christianoy J.:
In reply to the first question propounded, we think it is well settled, both upon principle and authority, that one partner, after dissolution of the firm, can not, by his admission or contract, create a new partnership liability; nor, for a like reason, can he, by his admission, revive a claim against the firm which has been barred by the statute of limitations, since this is equivalent to a new contract.
On the other hand, with the exception of claims barred by the statute of limitations, and others coming within a similar reason, we think it equally clear in principle, that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. LudlowNew York Supreme Court · 1810
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. SheldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Potter v. TolbertMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Clement v. ClementWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Guardian Depositors Corp. v. WagnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Bell v. PorterMichigan Supreme Court · 1932