Cobb v. Cole
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal'by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Dakota county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
It appears from the pleadings that the plaintiffs and the defendant had formerly been engaged in partnership business. The partnership was dissolved by mutual consent, it being agreed, as is alleged in the complaint, that the defendant should retire from the firm, and sell his interest therein to them; that he should pay to the plaintiffs “such sum as would make his interest in said firm equal to that of each of the plaintiffs therein, to wit, one-third interest,” (except as to a matter which need not be particularly referred to,) and the plaintiffs were to pay defendant “a sum equal to his…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Smith v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Buck v. BuckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Costello v. SykesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Osbon v. HartfielSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
- Cobb v. ColeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.