Legal Opinion
Pearce v. Sutherland
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 12, 1908No. 1,549PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The facts alleged in the bill present a case for equitable relief as against the appellee Sutherland. The formation of the corporation was not necessarily a dissolution of the copartnership. In fact, it is alleged in the bill that the corporation was formed for the purpose of carrying out the copartnership agreement. The case is similar to that of Monmouth Inv. Co. v. Means, 151 F. 159, 80 C.C.A. 527, in which the court recognized the existence of a copartnership to deal in real estate, aided by a corporation organized merely to be a holding company for the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Dodge v. WoolseySupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Brewer v. Proprietors of the Boston TheatreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- North State Copper & Gold Mining Co. v. FieldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
- Allen v. CurtisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Republican Mountain Silver Mines, Ltd. v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Burnrite Coal Briquette Co. v. RiggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Tower Hill-Connellsville Coke Co. of West Virginia v. Piedmont Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1933
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. WoodsSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
- Burke MacHinery Co. v. CopenhagenOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Lyon v. McKeefreyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.