Cobb v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a familiar rule that a partnership may be established solely from the conduct of the parties. McKallip et al. v. Geese et al., 30 Okla. 33 , 118 Pac. 588 . In the absence of a written agreement, a person who alleges a partnership between himself and another is bound to 'establish its existence by clear proof, especially if the other party to the agreement is dead. 30 Cyc. 402, 403, 413, 414; Parsons on Partnership, sec. 78; Stricker v. Gitchel, 14 Okla. 523 , 78 Pac. 94 ; Martin Browne Co. v. Morris, 1 Ind. T. 495 , 42 S. W. 423 . This rule, however, does not authorize a court, where there is testimony offered that fairly tends to establish the relationship alleged, to take the case from the jury and direct a verdict. Testimony, having been admitted for the purpose of showing that Edward Martin and S. S. Cobb were partners, being before the jury unchallenged, it was error necessitating a reversal for the trial court to direct a verdict. When the question whether a partnership exists is a matter of doubt, to be decided by inferences to be drawn from all the testimony, it is one of fact for the jury; and the court should not nonsuit or direct the jury to find a verdict for plaintiff or defendant. Seabury et al. v. Crowell, 52 N. J. Law, 413, 21 Atl. 952 , 11 L. R. A. 136; Id. 51 N. J. Law, 103, 16 Atl. 54 , 11 L. R. A. 136; Chick v. Robinson [ 95 Fed. 619 , 37 C. C. A. 205 , 52 L. R. A. 833], supra; Simmons v. Ingram, 78 Mo. App. 603 ; Moore v. Dickson, 121 Wis. 591 , 99”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hopkins v. National Bank of Commerce · Harmon v. National Supply Co. of Kansas

2. ““It is not shown that any settlement of the partnership, if in fact one existed, was; ever had; but, on the other hand, it appears that for several years after the death of Edward Martin, the surviving partner, Cobb, continued 'to pay to the estate large sums of money aggregating approximately 830,000. and for several years continued to manage and handle the cattle interests of the alleged partnership. This conclusion is strongly supported by the • testimony of the visit to defendant’s ranch of Joseph E. Martin, one of the trustees of the estate, and his attorney, and of the letter of December 24, 1897, as well as writings showing the account on which various credits were made as already shown. The fact that the partnership; if one. existed, had been dissolved, by the death of E'dward Martin did not thereby authorize the estate to sue, in an action at law, until after a settlement of the partnership affairs. If such settlement could not be had, then an action in equity for an accounting would be the only remedy that could properly be invoked.” •”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. Williford

3. ““It is elementary tliat one partner cannot maintain an action at la-w against another to recover an amount claimed by him by reason of partnership transactions until there has been a final settlement of the affairs of the concern by discharging its liabilities, collecting its assets, definitely ascertaining the surplus, to a share of which he is entitled. Up to that time, a partner’s only remedy is to apply to a court of equity for an accounting and ascertainment of such balance. Bates on Partnership, 849, 852, et seq.: Story’s Eq. Jur. sec. 683; Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur. sec. 1421; Tiedeman on Eq. Jur. sec. 534.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. Williford