Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Del. 66

M'cabe v. Morrison

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided July 5, 1836

Superior Court of Delaware · decided 1836-07-05

<p>A retailer’s license is not evidence for the party taking it out, of his interest in the store.</p> <p>To constitute a partnership there must be an agreement both for profit and loss.</p> <p>A dormant partner need not be joined as a party plaintiff, if there be no privity of con-, tract between him and the defendant.</p>

Decided 1836-07-05

The Court

¶1 left the question of partnership to the jury; defining it to be an association for the purpose of trade, where each party is to receive and bear his proportion of profit and loss; and instructing them, as to the other question, that it depended on the fact whether Conelly was a known or a dormant partner. If he was unknown-to the defendant, who dealt with McCabe' alone, then McCabe had the right to sue him alone.-

¶2 The plaintiff had a verdict*-

/2/del/66 · .json · Public domain