34 Ky. 144 (Ky.App. 1836), Maude v. Rodes

Citation:34 Ky. 144
Opinion Judge:ROBERTSON, CHIEF JUSTICE:
Party Name:Maude v. Rodes.
Attorney:Mr. Turner for plaintiff. Mr. Owsley for defendant.
Case Date:June 07, 1836
Court:Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Page 144

34 Ky. 144 (Ky.App. 1836)

Maude

v.

Rodes.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 7, 1836

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MADISON COUNTY.

Mr. Turner for plaintiff.

Mr. Owsley for defendant.

OPINION

ROBERTSON, CHIEF JUSTICE:

Statement of the case.

William Rodes filed a bill in Chancery against John Maude, Clifton Rodes, and Archibald W. Goodloe, praying for a decree dissolving a co-partnership into which they had all associated, for manufacturing hemp into cotton bagging, by a new contrivance of machinery to be propelled by steam; and also, for damages, against Maude for an alleged fraud, in falsely affirming the utility of such machinery, and in deceitfully commending himself as well qualified, by practice, to conduct it successfully and with great profit; and for damages also, for an alleged misappropriation of money and other property confided to his care, as the practical and operative partner.

Among other things, which we shall not now repeat, the bill alleged that, by the contract of partnership, all the capital was to be furnished, and had been furnished, by the complainant and by Clifton Rodes and Archibald W. Goodloe; that Maude was to superintend and conduct the " factory," and was, therefor, to be entitled to one-fourth part of the neat profits; that, after the entire establishment had, according to Maude's instructions, been, at an enormous expense, completed, the whole contrivance was ascertained to be altogether useless and unfit for the desired end; and that the parties had, therefore, voluntarily dissolved the partnership, by a parol agreement; but that Maude had " removed from this state" insisting that he would still enforce the contract for the co-partnership.

Maude having been proceeded against, by publication, as a non-resident, and having failed to answer, the bill was taken for confessed against him, as also against Clifton Rodes and A. W. Goodloe; and, thereupon, the Court having decreed a dissolution of the partnership, and a jury having assessed the complainant's damages to one thousand five hundred dollars--a decree was rendered against Maude, therefor, and, on a suggestion that the other parties had adjusted the subject matters of the suit among themselves, the bill was dismissed as to Clifton Rodes and A. W. Goodloe.

One of four partners in a factory filed his bill against the others, charging, that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP