¶1The defendant made a special contract with the plaintiffs as copartners to do work for him. In any suit to enforce this contract or any liability growing out of it, both partners must be joined as plaintiffs. The defendant contracted with them jointly, not with either of them separately. The dissolution of the partnership before the work was completed had no effect upon the rights or liability of the defendant. It did not authorize the plaintiffs to sever the contract and sue the defendant separately. They must still sue jointly. Page v. Wolcott, 15 Gray, 536. Having fully performed the contract on their part, so that nothing remains but a mere duty of the defendant to pay money, they may maintain either of the common counts which is appropriate. Morse v. Sherman, 106 Mass. 430. Exceptions overruled.
133 Mass. 441
Fish v. Gates
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided October 16, 1882
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1882-10-16
<p>If two persons, as copartners, make a special contract to do work for another, they must join as plaintiffs in an action for the money due thereunder, although the partnership is dissolved before the work is completed; and if the contract has been fully performed on their part, and nothing remains but a mere duty of the defendant to pay money, a count on an account annexed will lie.</p>
Relies on Morse v. Sherman
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1882-10-16
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 1983
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →