Baker v. Mayo
| Decision Date | 21 October 1880 |
| Citation | 129 Mass. 517 |
| Parties | George G. Baker v. Amaziah Mayo |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Hampden. Bill in equity to settle the affairs of a partnership. The case was referred to a master, to whose report the plaintiff filed four exceptions, the first and second of which related to items which the plaintiff contended should be included in the principal sum found due, and the others related to the allowance of interest on money advanced by the defendant to the firm. At the hearing, before Soule, J., the parties agreed that on a final decree the first and second exceptions might be considered as correctly taken; and the questions arising on the other exceptions were reserved for the consideration of the full court, and appear in the opinion.
Plaintiff's third and fourth exceptions overruled, and a decree entered in accordance with the master's report, modified by the agreement of the parties in regard to the first and second exceptions.
M. P Knowlton, for the plaintiff.
G. M Stearns, for the defendant.
These parties were partners under an oral agreement, and, as such entered into a contract to build a prison for the Commonwealth, the profits and loss of which undertaking they were to share equally. The master does not find the amount of capital which each was to contribute, or that there was any agreement on that subject; but he states that of the capital required for the business less than one thousand dollars was furnished by the plaintiff, and that all the other capital was furnished by the defendant. He also finds that the defendant advanced for the use of the firm $ 27,064, which was used by the firm for nearly three years. It does not appear that the defendant was under any obligation to furnish this sum, or that he did furnish it as capital to become the property of the firm. The master, therefore, might properly find that the firm was indebted to the defendant in this amount, as money advanced to and used by the firm; and that it was just and reasonable that the defendant should receive interest thereon in the settlement of the partnership accounts, although there was no special agreement between the partners on that subject. The evidence is not reported, and we cannot say that the master erred in thus deciding. While as a general rule, a partner cannot withdraw his capital during the continuance of the firm, and cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shulkin v. Shulkin
...may be charged if, under the circumstances of the particular case, the equities so require. Miller v. Lord, 11 Pick. 11, 25;Baker v. Mayo, 129 Mass. 517;Crabtree v. Randall, 133 Mass. 552;Wiggins v. Brand, 202 Mass. 141, 147, 88 N.E. 840;Cole v. Holton, 272 Mass. 565, 572, 573, 172 N.E. 858......
-
Rodgers v. Clement
...Lloyd v. Carrier, 2 Lans. 364; Beach v. Colles, 85 N. Y. 515;Collender v. Phelan, 79 N. Y. 366;Morris v. Allen, 14 N. J. Eq. 44;Baker v. Mayo, 129 Mass. 517; In re German Min. Co., 4 De Gex, M. & G. 19, 35; 1 Lindl. Partn. 390; In re Norwich Yarn Co., 22 Beav. 143, 169; Troup's Case, 29 Bea......
-
Holdridge v. McKewen
...to law, and (2) is not sustained by the evidence, are too indefinite and uncertain to merit consideration. 16 Cyc. 451, 452; 35 S.W. 762; 129 Mass. 517; 21 D. C. 128; 43 Ill.App. 611; 106 107; 12 Mich. 314; 48 W.Va. 639; 37 S.E. 526. OPINION HART, J. L. W. Holdridge and C. P. McKewen were p......
-
Kraus v. Kraus
...but loans or advances, upon which interest is allowable. Rodgers v. Clement, 162 N. Y. 422, 426,56 N. E. 901,76 Am. St. Rep. 342;Baker v. Mayo, 129 Mass. 517;Mack v. Engel, 165 Mich. 540, 131 N. W. 92; Pollock, Partnership, p. 143. Credit is due, and upon like grounds, for the rental value ......