Heimstreet v. Howland

5 Denio 68
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1847·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

By the Court, McKissock, J.

The charge of the learned circuit judge was erroneous. Though two persons may he [70]*70partners as to the rest of the community, where one receives a share of the profits and yet pays no part of the expenses, that principle will not aid the plaintiff. There must, to constitute a partnership, be a vested interest in profits in the person sought to be charged as a partner, such as would for that reason alone entitle him to an account in equity against the other persons concerned in the business. This is not so where the party is entitled to compensation in proportion to a certain share in the profits. This distinction rests on salutary and substantial principles, whatever may have been sometimes said to the contrary. (Champion v. Bostwick, 18 Wend. 175 ; 3 Kent's Com. 3d ed. 32; Perrine v. Hawkinson, 6 Halst. 184; Gow on Part. 19,20.)

New trial granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Heimstreet v. Howland, 5 Denio 68 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1847).

5 Denio 68 (Heimstreet v. Howland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

H. H. Worden Co. v. Beals
250 P. 375 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
Cole v. Rome Savings Bank
96 Misc. 188 (New York Supreme Court, 1916)
Dake v. Butler
58 N.Y. St. Rep. 550 (New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County, 1894)
Dake v. Butler
7 Misc. 302 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Dutcher v. Buck
20 L.R.A. 776 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Phillips v. Northern Railroad of New Jersey
16 N.Y.S. 909 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Cogswell v. Wilson
11 Or. 371 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1884)
Eastman v. Clark
53 N.H. 276 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1872)
In re Francis
9 F. Cas. 664 (D. Oregon, 1872)
Tucker v. Judd
3 Haw. 180 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1870)
Merwin v. Playford
3 Rob. 702 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1865)
Reynolds v. Hicks
19 Ind. 113 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1862)
Macy v. Combs
15 Ind. 469 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1860)
Norton v. E. Wiswall
26 Barb. 618 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)
Blackwel v. Wiswall
14 How. Pr. 257 (New York Supreme Court, 1855)
Catskill Bank v. Horace Gray & the Ulster Iron Co.
14 Barb. 471 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)