Moley v. Brine

120 Mass. 324, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 184
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 6, 1876·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The assets remaining upon the settlement of the business of the partnership, being less than the amount contributed by all the partners to the common stock, must be divided among them according to the amount of their contributions, and the deficiency must be borne by the partners in the same proportions in which they were to bear profits and losses, that is to say, in this case, equally. Whitcomb v. Converse, 119 Mass. 38.

[326] This rule is not affected by the fact that the defendant is an infant. According to the agreement between the parties, he contributed less than one eighth of the capital stock, and was to receive one third of the profits of the business. He actually entered into the partnership, had the benefit of it while it lasted, and drew out the greater part of his contribution. The assets remaining at the time of the dissolution being insufficient to pay the claims of all the partners, the loss of capital must fall upon the three partners in equal proportions, and the infant cannot throw upon his copartners the obligation of making up the deficiency. Breed v. Judd, 1 Gray, 455. Holmes v. Blogg, 2 Moore, 552 ; S. C. 8 Taunt. 508. Ex parte Taylor, 8 De G., M. & G. 254. Aldrich v. Abrahams, Hill & Denio, 423, 425. Medbury v. Watrous, 7 Hill, 110, 112, 113. Heath v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 251. Decree for the plaintiffs accordingly.

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

Moley v. Brine, 120 Mass. 324, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 184 (Mass. 1876).

120 Mass. 324 (Moley v. Brine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frye v. Yasi
101 N.E.2d 128 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Newman v. Newman
195 S.W.2d 393 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1946)
Kelly v. Halox
152 N.E. 236 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Shirley v. Straub
198 N.W. 675 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1924)
Godfrey v. Mutual Finance Corp.
242 Mass. 197 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Quinn v. Hayden
106 N.E. 1002 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Jennings v. William A. Stannus & Son
191 F. 347 (Ninth Circuit, 1911)
Smiley v. Smiley's Administratrix
71 S.E. 532 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1911)
Conary ex rel. Prochain Ami v. Sawyer
43 A. 27 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1899)
Shirk v. Shultz
15 N.E. 12 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1888)
Fairbanks v. Snow
13 N.E. 596 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Root v. Herman
2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 409 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1887)
Page v. Morse
128 Mass. 99 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)