Pappas v. Nickas

Michigan Supreme Court

Pappas v. Nickas

264 Mich. 357

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 29, 1933

DocketDocket No. 14, Calendar No. 36,003

StatusPublished

This text of 264 Mich. 357 (Pappas v. Nickas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pappas v. Nickas, 264 Mich. 357 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

The parties were partners in a restaurant business. Plaintiff was wrongfully excluded by defendant, who took over the assets. Plaintiff filed bill for accounting, dissolution, and other relief. He had decree. Defendant appeals.

The trial judge found the value of the partnership assets to be $3,000. This is challenged. The finding of value is within the evidence and not against the preponderance thereof, and therefore is permitted to stand. No other question merits discussion.

Affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, J.

The parties were partners in a restaurant business. Plaintiff was wrongfully excluded by defendant, who took over the assets. Plaintiff filed bill for accounting, dissolution, and other relief. He had decree. Defendant appeals.

The trial judge found the value of the partnership assets to be $3,000. This is challenged. The finding of value is within the evidence and not against the preponderance thereof, and therefore is permitted to stand. No other question merits discussion.

Affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 Mich. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pappas-v-nickas-mich-1933.