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 4, Page 80   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

80 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
fund.. If a creditor is pursuing two remedies when only one is
open to him, chancery may, upon application, compel him to
elect, but until this is done, his pursuit of both will not deprive
him of either. Here these parties have certainly not been
called upon to elect, and the circumstances (even if the proof
exiatod) that they are proceeding by way of attachment would
not deprive them of the right to come in under this bill of in-
terpleader and ask for their share of the fund.
[An order was then passed directing the division of the fund,
pro rata, amongst the creditors specified in the letter of Finley
of the 31st of March, 1850.]
JOHN NELSON, for Rieman & Sons.
WALLIS, THOMAS and NORRIS, for other Creditors.
WILLIAM J. HYDE
vs. SEPTEMBER TERM, 1847.
JOHN AND HAMILTON EASTER
[PARTNERSHIP—PARTNERS.]
THE rule that the carrying the stock of an old firm into the business of a new
one, entitles a partner of the old firm to treat the new trade as a continu-
ation of the old business, and to claim such proportion of the profits as he
might have claimed if the old trade had been continued, is not a universal one.
The right to share in the profits resulting from a continuation of the business
after dissolution, is founded upon the exposure of the property of the part-
ner who goes out to the risk of the new business, and if such partner has no
property to be thus exposed, the principle cannot apply.
This rule is not applicable to the present case, where the whole capital was fur-
nished by the continuing partners, and the out-going partner had at the time
of dissolution drawn more than his share of the profits, and the written arti-
cles of co-partnership provided for its termination in various contingencies in
precise terms, and the partnership was in fact dissolved in exact conformity
with the articles.
[The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the
Chancellor.]

  		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 4, Page 80   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives