Russell v. Green
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill in chancery for an account. The bill stated, That on the 6th of February, 1816, John C. Russell, Warren Russell and Timothy Green purchased 200,000 feet of pine lumber, for the sum of 3000 dollars, which was to be held, owned, and paid for, in the following proportions, viz. the Russells one quarter, each, and Green one half; that on the 1st of September, 1816, it was mutually agreed between these parties, that Green should ship this lumber to the city of…
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery for an account. The bill stated, That on the 6th of February, 1816, John C. Russell, Warren Russell and Timothy Green purchased 200,000 feet of pine lumber, for the sum of 3000 dollars, which was to be held, owned, and paid for, in the following proportions, viz. the Russells one quarter, each, and Green one half; that on the 1st of September, 1816, it was mutually agreed between these parties, that Green should ship this lumber to the city of New-York, and there dispose of it, and pay over the net avails thereof to the Russells, in proportion to their respective…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, J;
The defendant objects to this report, in the first place, that it appears upon the bill itself, that there is adequate remedy at law. It is certainly very late to take this exception, after the appointment of a committee, and a report of that committee, and all the attendant expenses have been incurred. If the court were satisfied, that it had no jurisdiction, I do not see but this objection would be fatal. But it has been decided, that wherever there are more than two partners, resort must be had to chancery to settle their accounts; as that is the only forum that can examine and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- New-London Bank v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
- Boreing v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Wasatch Const. Co. v. Utah Const. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1938