Scott & Co. v. Atlanta Wood & Iron Novelty Works

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Scott & Co. v. Atlanta Wood & Iron Novelty Works

76 S.E. 1082, 12 Ga. App. 216, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 499

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1913

Docket4122

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 1082 (Scott & Co. v. Atlanta Wood & Iron Novelty Works) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott & Co. v. Atlanta Wood & Iron Novelty Works, 76 S.E. 1082, 12 Ga. App. 216, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 499 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. In this State the dissolution of a partnership brings to an end all powers and rights resulting to the partners from the partnership, “except for the purpose of general account and winding up the business.” Civil Code, § 3164.

2. Embraced within the power to wind up the business is the authority ' to compromise and adjust a claim in favor of the partnership against a third party; and if such a claim be compromised by one of the partners in good faith, a#id without collusion between him • and the debtor, the other partners will be bound. 30 Cyc. 663; Gilmore on Partnership, § 117; Gilmore v. Ham, 142 N. Y. 1 (36 N. E. 826, 40 Am. St. Rep. 564), and citations.

3. Where, however, one of the former partners had surrendered to the other partners all interest which he had in a claim in favor of the partnership and against a third person, he was not authorized, without the consent of his former partners, to settle and adjust the claim or execute a release thereof. Applying this principle to the facts in the above-stated case, there was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, J.

1. In this State the dissolution of a partnership brings to an end all powers and rights resulting to the partners from the partnership, “except for the purpose of general account and winding up the business.” Civil Code, § 3164.

2. Embraced within the power to wind up the business is the authority ' to compromise and adjust a claim in favor of the partnership against a third party; and if such a claim be compromised by one of the partners in good faith, a#id without collusion between him • and the debtor, the other partners will be bound. 30 Cyc. 663; Gilmore on Partnership, § 117; Gilmore v. Ham, 142 N. Y. 1 (36 N. E. 826, 40 Am. St. Rep. 564), and citations.

3. Where, however, one of the former partners had surrendered to the other partners all interest which he had in a claim in favor of the partnership and against a third person, he was not authorized, without the consent of his former partners, to settle and adjust the claim or execute a release thereof. Applying this principle to the facts in the above-stated case, there was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 1082, 12 Ga. App. 216, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-co-v-atlanta-wood-iron-novelty-works-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack