clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 83   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

LILLY VS. KROESEN. 88
ALONZO LILLY
vs. SEPTEMBER TERM, 1851.
JOSIAH KROESEN.
[PARTNERSHIP.-CONSTRICTION OF CONTRACT OF DISSOLUTION.]
WHERE a partner seeks to discharge and falsify a settlement of the partner-
ship affairs, upon the ground of error or mistake, the onus probandi is on
him to show the errors, otherwise the Court will take it as a stated ac-
count, and establish it.
Each partner has the right of full and free access at all times to the boolcs
of the partnership.
Where two partners adjusted their partnership accounts, upon full, com-
plete, and truthful data, ascertained the proportion of the surplus to which
each was entitled, and, by their written contract, deliberately prepared
and signed, stipulated how, and from what source each should receive the
sum due him, such a settlement cannot be discharged or falsified on the
ground of error or mistake.
Where a contract of dissolution provided that the liquidating partner
" should, from time to time, as assets may be received," pay to the other
a certain "sum, " to place him upon equal footing frith" the former, and
then divide the surplus in the proportion of one-third to the former and
two-thirds to the latter, and the assets proved insufficient to make up this
equality, it was HELD—
That the latter was entitled to recover from the former one-third of such
deficiency, the former having received from the partnership before disso-
lution a certain sum, in regard to which the equality was to be made by
payment to tha latter of the Bum stipulated in the contract of dissolution.
The contract also stipulated " that no interest is to be allowed or paid by
or to either party from the date" of the contract. HELD—that this refers
to all sums that may be paid to either party from the date of the contract,
including that required to make up the equality above referred to.
[The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the
Chancellor.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
It appears by the proceedings in this case, that on the 1st
of February, 1836, articles of copartnership were signed by
certain parties trading under the name and style of Alonzo
Lilly & Company, and the defendant, Josiah Kroesen, the
new partnership thus formed to be called Josiah Kroesen &

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 83   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives