Fletcher v. Cain
This text of 3 Ky. Op. 596 (Fletcher v. Cain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion of the Court by
The evidence leaves no room to doubt but that Durrett, Cain and Matthew Fletcher were partners in the forage pressing business and that as the presses were bought with the profits of the concern they became partnership property, hence, whilst unsold either party had the right to have them stored and cared for and the bailee should be allowed a reasonable compensation therefor, though the partnership may have previously ceased.
If the suit' had been dismissed for want of proper parties, because all the partners were not made defendants in the warrant before the justice of the peace, though before trial it was dismissed as to all but Cain, this should have been done without prejudice and not by peremptory instruction, as in this case, to the jury to find for the defendant, which will bar any other suit, so whether upon the merits or for want of proper parties said instruction was erroneous.
Wherefore the judgment is reversed with directions for a new trial and further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Ky. Op. 596, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fletcher-v-cain-kyctapp-1869.