Atherton v. Goldsmith

48 A. 141, 22 R.I. 376, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 21

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The nonsuit in this case was erroneously granted.

In Dowling v. Clarke, 13 R. I. 134, the claim was for an unascertained balance claimed to be due on a partnership account, and for this it was held that assumpsit would not lie.

(1) In Fry v. Potter, 12 R. I. 542, however, a case like the present one, it was held that assumpsit would lie, because, there being no general copartnership, but only an agreement to share the gains and losses of a particular adventure, and nothing outstanding to be adjusted, the transaction was closed and the losses ascertained.

Jacob W. Mathewson, and George T. Broivn, for plaintiff. Edward D. Bassett, for defendant.

This case is even stronger, from the plaintiff’s testimony that the money sued for was a loan to the defendant to enable him to the speculation of purchasing options on land.

Petition for new trial granted.