Owen v. Cohen case brief summary
119 P.2d 713 (1941)
CASE FACTS
Appellant partner and respondent partner entered into an agreement to run a bowling alley. Subsequently, the relationship between the two became strained. Respondent brought suit against appellant for the dissolution of the partnership and for the sale of the partnership assets in connection with the settlement of partnership affairs. The trial court found for respondent, stating that the partnership was a partnership at-will and that the relationship of the parties was so strained that respondent was entitled to dissolution under Cal. Civ. Code § 2425(1). Appellant sought review, arguing that the evidence showed only petty discord between the parties.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the grant of judgment to respondent partner on his action brought to dissolve his partnership with appellant partner and for the sale of the assets of the partnership in connection with the settlement of the partnership's affairs..
NOTES:
Why did Owen bring this case to court? Because he didn’t want Cohen to call it
wrongful dissolution and go to court for settlement. Remember that bringing an
action is not itself an act of wrongdoing.
119 P.2d 713 (1941)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant partner sought review of an
order by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which
granted judgment to respondent partner on his action for the
dissolution of his partnership with appellant and for the sale of the
partnership assets in connection with the settlement of its affairs.CASE FACTS
Appellant partner and respondent partner entered into an agreement to run a bowling alley. Subsequently, the relationship between the two became strained. Respondent brought suit against appellant for the dissolution of the partnership and for the sale of the partnership assets in connection with the settlement of partnership affairs. The trial court found for respondent, stating that the partnership was a partnership at-will and that the relationship of the parties was so strained that respondent was entitled to dissolution under Cal. Civ. Code § 2425(1). Appellant sought review, arguing that the evidence showed only petty discord between the parties.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed, holding that dissolution was proper where there were quarrels or disagreements of such a nature and to such an extent that all confidence and cooperation between the parties had been destroyed.
- Thus, respondent made out a cause for judicial dissolution of the partnership under Cal. Civ. Code § 2426, as appellant was guilty of such conduct that affected prejudicially the carrying on of the business.
- Appellant, because of his commission of provocative acts, was in no position to insist on continuation.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the grant of judgment to respondent partner on his action brought to dissolve his partnership with appellant partner and for the sale of the assets of the partnership in connection with the settlement of the partnership's affairs..
NOTES:
Why did Owen bring this case to court? Because he didn’t want Cohen to call it
wrongful dissolution and go to court for settlement. Remember that bringing an
action is not itself an act of wrongdoing.
No comments:
Post a Comment