Maude v. Rodes

Citation34 Ky. 144
PartiesMaude v. Rodes.
Decision Date07 June 1836
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

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 one of the defendants, who was to furnish skill & c.--no capital, had by deceitful representations induced a large expenditure of the money of the others for machinery that proved utterly useless, and had in other ways also, misapplied the funds--praying (among other things) for damages occasioned by these alleged frauds & c. which were assessed by a jury; those damages belong to three partners jointly; a decree, therefore in favor of one, for the whole sum--unless he shows that he has succeeded to the rights of the other--cannot be sustained; nor can one be permitted to sue separately, for his own share, leaving grounds for other suits among the rest. A suggestion in the decree, that the three injured partners had settled their interests, will not cure the error. as a settlement among them, would not necessarily bar their suits against the offender.

Of that decree Maude now complains.

Were the jurisdiction of the Court conceded without qualification we should still be of the opinion that the decree for damages should not be sustained; for the claim to damages is asserted against Maude alone, and if it be just, it belongs equally to all his co-partners; and no one of them should, by a bill in chancery, taken for confessed, be permitted to maintain a suit for his separate and undivided interest,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State ex rel. Armour Packing Co. v. Dickmann
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 4, 1910
    ...... 563; Hodges v. Frazier, 31 Ark. 58; Arkansas. Coal Co. v. Haley, 62 Ark. 144; Waggoner v. Fogleman, 53 Ark. 181; Maude v. Rhodes, 34 Ky. 144; Gill v. Johnson, 58 Ky. 649. (b) Likewise the. prosecution of a writ of error operates as an entry of. appearance. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT