Howe v. Jolly

68 Miss. 323
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1890·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Coopek, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. •

Conceding that Jolly and Moneghan were engaged in unlawfully retailing intoxicating liquor, it does not follow that, as between themselves, one partner might lawfully convert the whole property of the partnership, or that there could be no property in the stock and in the unlawful business.

The authorities are numerous to the contrary, but the question is so completely settled by our own case of Gilliam v. Brown, 43 Miss. 658, that further citations ai’e unnecessary.

Reversed, demurrer overruled and defendants pempitted to answer within thirty days after the mandate shall have been filed in the court below.

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

Howe v. Jolly, 68 Miss. 323 (Mich. 1890).

68 Miss. 323 (Howe v. Jolly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kennedy v. Lonabaugh
117 P. 1079 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1911)
Woodson v. Hopkins
85 Miss. 171 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1904)
Decell v. Hazlehurst Oil Mill & Fertilizer Co.
83 Miss. 346 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1903)
Fewell v. American Surety Co.
80 Miss. 782 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1902)
Andrews v. New Orleans Brewing Ass'n
74 Miss. 362 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1896)