Burnam v. Burnam
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 24 — PETITION EQUITY — CITED 8 Dana, 214-15, Lashbrook v. Lee. 1 Mon. 80, Simms v. Kirtley. 11 B. Mon. 827, Cunningham v. Smith’s ex’rs. Colyer on Partnership, p. 77. 4 B. Mon. 491, Divine v. Mitchum. 16 B. Mon. 686. 1 Parsons on Contracts, 128. (Brief not in record.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PETEBS
delivered the opinion op the court.
In 1848 tbe parties to this contract formed a partnership to prosecute the business of farming, deal in stock, and engage in other pursuits which promised to be profitable and about which they should agree. These, as the pleadings and proof show, were the purposes for which the partnership was formed, the agreement being in parol, and it was to continue during the. pleasure of the parties. Their families lived on the most intimate terms, and they were harmonious, energetic, and successful in business until 1862, when, from some cause unexplained…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fagnani v. Integrity Finance CorporationSuperior Court of Delaware · 1960
- Adams' adm'r v. RingoCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880
- Jordan v. LobeWashington Supreme Court · 1904