Skip to main content
· 4/3/1893

Tindel v. Park

Citations

  • 154 Pa. 36
  • 26 A. 300
  • 1893 Pa. LEXIS 836

Syllabus

<p>Limited partnership — Voluntary dissolution — -Act of June 2, 1874.</p> <p>Where a limited partnership association, organized under the act of June 2, 1874, is “ dissolved by the voluntary action thereof,” the winding up of the business of the association, when any of the partners insist upon it, must be by three trustees, as provided by § 9 of the act. In such a case a bill in equity for an account and a receiver cannot be sustained.</p> <p>When such an association ends by its own limitation it is dissolved “ by the voluntary act thereof,” within the meaning of the act.</p> <p>Equity — Jurisdiction—Dissolution of limited partnership.</p> <p>Where the articles of a limited partnership association limit the duration of the association for five years, and the partners voluntarily continue the business for six months after the expiration of the five years, a court of equity cannot, by assuming jurisdiction of the accounts of the business for the last six months, include the business transacted under the limited partnership articles, upon the principle “that where a court of equity has jurisdiction of a cause, it will decide all that is equitably cognate to it.”</p> <p>Where the legislature has limited or abolished equitable jurisdiction, equity will regard the law.</p> <p>The method provided by the aet of June 2, 1874, for settling the accounts of a limited partnership association, where the dissolution of the association has been voluntary, supersedes the jurisdiction of equity in such a ease.</p> <p>Where, however, the dissolution is involuntary, either by disagreement among the partners or by insolvency, equity will entertain jurisdiction by bill to wind up and distribute the assets of the association among creditors and members.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “Taxpayer’s bare assertions [that items should be exempt] will not sustain its burden of proving that the tax was improperly assessed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dean, McCollum, Mitchell, Thompson, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.