Cobb v. Benedict
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County. The parties to this action, with one Wilson, were formerly-engaged in business as partners. Benedict claims that October 1, 1891, his copartners purchased his interest in the firm, for which they agreed to pay him the sum of $10,000 and other considerations.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County. The parties to this action, with one Wilson, were formerly-engaged in business as partners. Benedict claims that October 1, 1891, his copartners purchased his interest in the firm, for which they agreed to pay him the sum of $10,000 and other considerations. He brought an action to recover the balance of the money consideration, basing his right thereto upon the foregoing statement, and claims that such balance is the sum of $2,500. The defendant Cobb alone answered, by which he tendered (1) the legal defense of payment; (2) the equitable…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gabbert
The main question between tbe parties is, what was their contract, either expressly or by implication, with respect to the assumption of the liabilities of the firm by Cobb and Wilson at the time they purchased the interest of Benedict? Incidentally, there is also presented for determination, what their contract was with respect to the account standing to the credit of Benedict on the books of the firm at the time of such purchase. Upon the determination of these questions the rights of the parties principally depend. In determining the main question, we will eliminate, for the present, the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Edens v. WilliamsIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Norman v. HudlestonIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Clark v. CarrAppellate Court of Illinois · 1892
- Lambert v. GriffithMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Douglas v. WinslowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1841
3Cited by3 opinions
- Riddell v. RamseyMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Scheuer v. WiseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- McGilvery v. McGilvery & Seeley, Ltd.Idaho Supreme Court · 1912