Karrick v. Hannaman
Citations
- 168 U.S. 328
- 18 S. Ct. 135
- 42 L. Ed. 484
- 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1728
Syllabus
<p>A partner who, within the term stipulated in the articles of partnership for its continuance, undertakes, of his own will, and without the consent of his copartner, to dissolve the partnership, takes exclusive possession of its property and business, profitably carries on the business with the property for his own benefit, and excludes his copartner from any participation in the business or the profits, is liable (whether the partnership should or should not be considered as having been dissolved by his acts) to account to the copartner for his share of the property and of the profits of the partnership, according to the partnership agreement.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that an antidissolution provision in partnership agreement should not prevent dissolution when one partner wrongfully excludes the other
- remarking that \[n]o partnership can efficiently or beneficially carry on its business without the mutual confidence and co-operation of all the partners.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
80 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation No. 40Supreme Court· 1937-03-29· cited 1,073×
- Lusthaus v. CommissionerSupreme Court· 1946-02-25· cited 387×
- Rodgers v. RAB Investments, Ltd.Tex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1991-09-06· cited 87×
- Gherman v. ColburnCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1977-08-10· cited 85×
- Fidelity Trust Co. v. BVD AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-05-14· cited 61×
- In Re: Ben Franklin Hotel Associates, Debtor Ben Franklin Hotel AssociatesThird Circuit· 1999-08-09· cited 56×
- State Street Trust Co. v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1942-04-01· cited 54×
- Zimmerman v. HardingSupreme Court· 1913-02-24· cited 45×
- Red River Wings, Inc. v. Hoot, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court· 2008-06-20· cited 37×
- Warner v. FullerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1923-06-05· cited 37×
- Walsh v. Atlantic Research Associates, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1947-02-26· cited 37×
- Unnamed caseEighth Circuit· 1986-09-24· cited 35×
- Ulrey v. KeithIllinois Supreme Court· 1908-12-15· cited 34×
- Federal Oil Co. v. Western Oil Co.Seventh Circuit· 1902-10-07· cited 30×
- Congel v. MalfitanoCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors· 2018-03-27· cited 29×
- Schroer v. SchroerSupreme Court of Missouri· 1952-05-12· cited 28×
- State v. CosgroveIdaho Supreme Court· 1922-11-06· cited 26×
- Travis v. St. JohnSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-08-29· cited 23×
- Napoli v. DomnitchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1962-12-24· cited 23×
- In Re StegallC.D. Illinois· 1987-06-29· cited 19×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Marble Co. v. RipleySupreme Court· 1870-12-19· cited 250×
- Meehan v. ValentineSupreme Court· 1892-05-16· cited 196×
- Holmes v. . GilmanNew York Court of Appeals· 1893-06-06· cited 109×
- Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1895-12-23· cited 62×
- Somerby v. BuntinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1875-09-06· cited 57×
- Tobey v. County of BristolU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts· 1845-05-15· cited 42×
- Marquand v. President of New-York Manufacturing Co.Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors· 1820-04-27· cited 24×
- Satterthwait v. MarshallCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1872-02-15· cited 16×
- Freeman v. FreemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1884-01-29· cited 15×
- Hannaman v. KarrickUtah Supreme Court· 1893-06-15· cited 11×
- Wilkins v. DavisD. Massachusetts· 1876-11-13· cited 9×
- Pearce v. HamSupreme Court· 1885-03-02· cited 8×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.