Dunlap v. Watson
| Decision Date | 25 March 1878 |
| Citation | 124 Mass. 305 |
| Parties | John Dunlap v. Edward F. Watson |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Middlesex. Bill in equity, inserted in an original writ of summons and attachment, dated November 4, 1869, for the settlement of the affairs of a partnership. Hearing upon the pleadings, a master's report and the defendant's exceptions thereto, before Lord, J., who reserved the case for the consideration of the full court. The material facts appear in the opinion.
Decree for the plaintiff.
T. H Sweetser, (G. A. A. Pevey with him,) for the plaintiff.
J Davis, for the defendant.
OPINION
The defendant excepts to the master's report, because he disallowed his claim for services rendered both before the formation of the partnership, and after its termination.
The plaintiff and defendant were carpenters. The master finds that a copartnership was formed between them in 1855, for the purpose of erecting certain buildings for a corporation, and continued until the work was finished in 1856; that by the terms of the agreement, (there being no written articles of copartnership,) each was to devote his whole time and labor to the business of the firm and pay his own personal expenses, and the profits were to be divided equally. At the time the partnership was formed, the defendant had already made contracts for some of the buildings afterwards completed by the firm, and had performed some services in regard to them; and, after the partnership was ended, he took possession of the property and assets and rendered other service in winding up the business. The master reports that there was no evidence of any agreement that the defendant should receive compensation for services, rendered either before the formation, or after the termination, of the copartnership. The plaintiff was permitted to participate equally in the profits of the several contracts, and each party was bound to contribute his personal service and skill in promoting the interests of the firm and in closing its business. It is not enough, that the master finds that the defendant rendered valuable service before the partnership existed, of which the firm, when formed, took advantage. It may be that the defendant's previous service was an inducement which operated on the plaintiff to become a partner, and we cannot see that the master erred in not allowing compensation for it. It is clear that the service rendered in closing up the business was only that which was due from the defendant under the partnership agreement. In a qualified and limited sense, the partnership is said to continue between the parties until its affairs are fully closed up, and the obligation of each to contribute his services without compensation continues, unless changed by a new agreement. Washburn v. Goodman, 17 Pick. 519. Schenkl v. Dana, 118 Mass. 236. Story on Part. (6th ed.) §§ 325, 331, and notes.
The defendant also objects to the master's report because he has charged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shulkin v. Shulkin
...a partner to compensation for his services depends wholly upon agreement, express or implied. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 108A, § 18(f). Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 305, 306;Hoag v. Alderman, 184 Mass. 217, 218, 68 N.E. 199;Wiggins v. Brand, 202 Mass. 141, 145, 88 N.E. 840. The court may draw its own ......
-
Silversmith v. Sydeman
...the case an exception to the general rule that a partner is not entitled to compensation for settling the business of the firm. Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 305;Hoag v. Alderman, 184 Mass. 217, 68 N.E. 199;Wiggins v. Brand, 202 Mass. 141, 88 N.E. 840;Magullion v. Magee, 241 Mass. 360, 135 N.......
-
Ball v. Hopkins (In re Ball's Estate)
...on the profits due the estate of Elizabeth Ball, and with interest on the undivided profits belonging to the remaindermen. In Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 305, one of the partners on the dissolution of the firm settled its affairs. He received rents and dividends on shares in a corporation o......
-
Magullion v. Magee
...extent of his personal services devoted to such extra work, he is entitled to compensation.’ Schenkl v Dana, 118 Mass. 236, 239;Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 305;Ruggles v. Buckley, 175 Fed. 57, 99 C. C. A. 73,27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 541,20 Ann. Cas. 1057. Notwithstanding the general rule, circum......