Lawrence v. Robinson

4 Colo. 567
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedApril 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 4 Colo. 567 (Lawrence v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lawrence v. Robinson, 4 Colo. 567 (Colo. 1879).

Opinion

Elbert, J.

The bill alleges an agreement between the complainants and two of the defendants to “engage in the business of prospecting for and development of lode mining property,” for the joint use and benefit of all. Such an agreement is like a partnership and each party thereto becomes the agent of the other in prosecuting the joint adventure. Murley v. Ennis, 2 Col. 300.

The allegations of the bill do not support the view taken by the court below. The bill does not seek to enforce an agreement to enter into a partnership, but rights under an agreement in the nature of a partnership entered' upon and acted under by the parties. • On the facts alleged, which the. demurrer admits, the complainants were entitled, if not to all the relief prayed, to at least a specific performance as well as an account of profits wrongfully appropriated. That no time was limited by the agreement during which it should continue in force left it, under equitable restrictions (1 Story’s Eq. Jur., § 668), determinable at pleasure, but could not operate to defeat rights accrued in virtue of its covenants while it was in force. • That the property, touching which relief is sought, was acquired under the agreement, and while it was in force, is sufficiently alleged. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill.

The decree of the court below is reversed and the cause .remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

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

Related

Bradley v. Andrews
14 P.2d 1086 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1932)
Schmidt v. Horton
287 P. 274 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1930)
Bielenberg v. Higgins
277 P. 631 (Montana Supreme Court, 1929)
Sturm v. Ulrich
10 F.2d 9 (Eighth Circuit, 1925)
McDonough v. Saunders
78 So. 160 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Arkansas Valley Town & Land Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
1915 OK 797 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Joliet Bottling Co. v. Joliet Citizens Brewing Co.
164 Ill. App. 490 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1911)
Abbott v. Smith
3 Colo. App. 264 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Colo. 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-robinson-colo-1879.