Chase v. Garvin
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the District Court. This was an action of assumpsit. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff's, constituting the firm of John G. Chase & Co. had formed a copartnership with the defendant under the name of Stephen Garvin «fe Co. which had been dissolved — that after the dissolution, the defendant made, as he said, a full, true and accurate exhibit of the debts of the copartnership — and of the several balances and notes due the firm — the lumber and other…
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the District Court. This was an action of assumpsit. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff's, constituting the firm of John G. Chase & Co. had formed a copartnership with the defendant under the name of Stephen Garvin «fe Co. which had been dissolved — that after the dissolution, the defendant made, as he said, a full, true and accurate exhibit of the debts of the copartnership — and of the several balances and notes due the firm — the lumber and other property on hand, for all which, deducting the estimated amount of debts due from the firm, he offered the sum of nine…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Weston C. J.
While a partnership exists, or remains unsettled, no action at law can be maintained by one partner against another, except an action of account, or of assumpsit ou a promise to account. Wilby & al. v. Phinney, 15 Mass. R. 116. This doctrine is well established, and is conceded by the counsel for the plaintiffs. But where the partnership has been dissolved, and its concerns adjusted, a suit at law may be maintained for a balance found due from the one to the other. So where in such case, the accounts have been settled, and one has by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilby v. PhinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
3Cited by1 opinion
- Burnham v. HopkinsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1845