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 81   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

HYDE VS. EASTER. 81
THE CHANCELLOR:
It appears in this case that on the 1st day of February, 1842,
the complainant and the defendants entered into written articles
of copartnership, for the purpose of carrying on the dry goods
business, in the city of Baltimore, for the space of four years,
under the name and style of Wm. J. Hyde & Easter, unless
sooner dissolved in the mode stipulated in the contract.
The capital was to be furnished by the defendants, and the
management of the business subject to their advice and counsel,
was confided to the plaintiff, who was to devote his time and at-
tention exclusively thereto; and by one of the stipulations it
was agreed between the parties that "the privilege should be
and was reserved to the defendants, that if during the continu-
ance of the copartnership they should, in their judgment, think
that the said William J. Hyde is not conducting the business of
the firm in a manner so as to redound to their advantage, the
right is reserved to them of entering the premises and taking
possession of the stock of goods on hand, the books and effects
of the firm, and declaring the partnership dissolved; and after
the payment of all the liabilities of the firm, paying to the said
William J. Hyde, in merchandise, at the cost thereof, any por-
tions of the profits that may have accrued to him."
There were other stipulations looking to a termination of the
partnership from different causes, which it is not deemed neces-
sary to notice, and then it was agreed that the profits upon the
dissolution should be divided in the proportion of one-third to
each party.
It further appears, that the parties commenced and carried
on business according to the terms of these articles, the capital
being furnished by the defendants, and the labor and necessary
attention by the plaintiff, until the 31st of January, in the year
1843, when the partnership was, by the defendants, declared
to be dissolved, and the stock in trade, books and other effects
of the firm, were taken possession of by them.
Afterwards, on the 1st of February following, the plaintiff
filed his bill in this court, in which, after setting forth the ar-
ticles of copartnership and averring the due and faithful per-
VOL. IV—7

  		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 81   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