Watson v. Brown

8 Ohio N.P. 330
CourtOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati
DecidedJuly 1, 1901
StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ohio N.P. 330 (Watson v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Watson v. Brown, 8 Ohio N.P. 330 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1901).

Opinion

Dempsey, J.

The petition does separately state and number two causes o.f action, but defendant contends that the first cause of action as set out is-in realitv two causes of action and should be-stated and numbered as such. But this is not so. The first count in the petition is, in reality what is known as a partnership bill — an equitable remedy whereby, either before or after dissolution, a partner may procure protection of the partnership property, an account, and a distribution of its assets. These forms of [331]*331relief are just what plaintiff seeks in his count.

A. W. Goldsmith for motion; John Weld, contra.

The making of the Casualty Company a party to this count and asking an injunction against it does not alter the case any, as the injunction here is but incidental to the main relief, and in line with the main object of the action, viz., the distribution of the alleged partnership assets.

Motion overruled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Ohio N.P. 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-brown-ohsuperctcinci-1901.