Etheridge v. Binney

26 Mass. 272

Opinion

The Court

now held that the instructions given to the jury were correct.¹ And in regard to interest, they said the circumstance that memorandum checks were given, showed that the money was lent but for a short time. The nonpayment was a breach of the implied contract, and the money was wrongfully detained ; which is one of the cases for allowing interest. And the calling for security was a demand binding upon all the partners, as the copartnership was not dissolved until the 15th of September following.

1 See Mifflin v. Smithf 17 Serg. & Rawle, 165; U. S. Bank v. Binney, 5 Mason, 176; S. C. 5 Peters, 529; Vallett v. Parker, 6 Wendell, 615; Collyer on Partnership, (Am. ed.) 213, 227, 449.