Rose v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FILLMORE COUNTY. Points and authorities for Appellant. I. This contract imposed upon the Appellant only the obligations and liability of a gratuitous trustee, or an assign.ee for the benefit of creditors. To authorize an action to be maintained against him, it was incumbent on the Respondent to show that some loss had been sustained by his negligence, want of caution, mistake, or positive misconduct.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FILLMORE COUNTY. Points and authorities for Appellant. I. This contract imposed upon the Appellant only the obligations and liability of a gratuitous trustee, or an assign.ee for the benefit of creditors. To authorize an action to be maintained against him, it was incumbent on the Respondent to show that some loss had been sustained by his negligence, want of caution, mistake, or positive misconduct. Burrell on Assignments, eh. 4’7, pp. 55 3 to 559. No allegation of that kind is in the complaint. II. The complaint shows that the contract was without…
1Opinion of the Court
Ry the Court
Atwater, J.
Demurrer to complaint. The complaint shows that on the 28th day of November, 1854, the Plaintiff, one Byron Clark, and the Defendant.in this action, were theretofore partners in business in the State of Pennsylvania, under the firm name and style of Clark, Roberts & Co.; that on the said day the firm dissolved their connection as copartners, and entered into an agreement with each other which, after recognizing the previously existing partnership and its dissolution on that day, proceeds as follows:
“ Now this agreement witnesseth that the said Byron Clark and Joel Rose…
2Cited by3 opinions
- People v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Peterson v. CleaverNebraska Supreme Court · 1920
- Roberts v. . OpdykeNew York Court of Appeals · 1869