Weed v. Smull
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the court upon the plea of the defendants to part of the relief claimed by the complainant in his bill.
Read the full summary
This case came before the court upon the plea of the defendants to part of the relief claimed by the complainant in his bill. The complainant and defendants were copartners in the business of buying, selling, preparing and dealing in wool and sheep skins, in the city of New-York, from March, 1835, to July, 1836. And this bill was filed for an account of the partnership business from the commencement ; the complainant alleging that the accounts had never been settled, although about the time of the dissolution of the copartnership, the defendants made a statement of the account and submitted…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The first objection which is made to the defendants’ plea in this case, is that they have not annexed copies of the stated and settled accounts, which they plead in bar of any account in relation to the copartnership business previous to the 16th of June, 1836. It is evident that the complainant has entirely mistaken the principle upon which this objection was intended to be based; and that the objection could not have availed him any thing, *575even if he had not deprived himself of the power to urge such an objection, by waiving the necessity of an answer on oath. The principle,…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Joseph v. . HerzigNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Raht v. Union Consolidated Mining Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1880
- Bay State Gas Co. of Delaware v. LawsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Jones v. Flushing National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Morrison v. ChapmanNew York Supreme Court · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.