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

HYDE VS. EASTER. 85
business, and that if the partner going out has no property to
be thus exposed, the principle cannot apply. Collyer on Part.,
181, 182. The case of Crawshay vs. Collins, 2 Russell, 325,
cited by the counsel for the plaintiff was a case in which the
bankrupt partner, (whose assignees were allowed to participate
in the profits made by the continuing partners subsequently to
the bankruptcy,) was entitled not only to a share of the profits
during the continuance of the partnerships, but to a proportion
of the capital also. In deciding that case, Lord Eldon said,
"the continuing partner has made profits by the use of the funds
which belonged to the partnership itself, and although he added
other funds of his own, yet as he put the partnership fund in
hazard, the addition of his own funds should not bring to him
and take away from others all the profits which have arisen
from the property of the original partnership, which was in
truth the foundation of the concern." He further observed that
his opinion was founded upon the particular circumstances of
that case, and was not to be regarded as laying down a principle
for the decision of other cases.
Besides, the partnership in the case of Crawshay vs. Collins,
was founded upon a parol agreement for an indefinite period,
and of course contained no provision for its dissolution. It
was, in fact, terminated by the bankruptcy of one of the part-
ners, after which the business was carried on by the others, and
profits made, in part, at least, out of the pre-existing capital,
and the Lord Chancellor dwelt upon this circumstance, and upon
the importance that all partnerships should subsist upon written
articles, "and that they should lay down a clear rule in what
way the interests of the partners in the different events that
may occur are to be disposed of." The Chancellor also made
the additional observation, which was, that "the rule which is
to be applied must be deduced in almost every case from the
particular circumstances of that very case."
Now, looking to the circumstances of this case, to the fact
that the whole capital was furnished by the defendants; that
the complainant, (estimating the stock on hand at prices above
those it probably sold for, and assuming the debts due the firm
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 85   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives