Pierre Berthold Alfred Bernondy and Marklat Thompson v. Edward Goldsmith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “, - “Actual participation in the profits as a principal, we think, creates a part-' nership as between the parties and a third person, whatever may be their . intention in that behalf, and notwithstanding the dormant partner was not expected to participate in the loss beyond the amount of profits. Every man who :ha's- a Share in the profits in a trade or business ought also to bear his share ¡of the losses, for the reason that in taking a part of the profits he takes a part of the fund or trade on which the creditor relies for payment.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meehan v. Valentine · Donald v. Guy

2. “Partnership is usually defined to be a voluntary contract between 2 or more competent persons, to place their money, effects, labor and skill, or some one or all of them, in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding that there shall be a communion of the profits thereof between them. But partnerships and community of interest, independently considered, are not always the same thing; for the first, as between the partners themselves, is founded upon the copartnership agreement which prescribes the relation they bear to each other, and of itself creates the community of interest; but the last many exist, notwithstanding there has been no agreement between the parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eyestone v. Commissioner

3. “may have expressly stipulated with his associates against all the' usual incidents to that relation. That rule, however, has no application whatever to a 'case of service or special-Agency, where the employe has no power as a partner in the firm and no interest in the profits, as property, but is simply employed as a servant or special agent, and is to receive a given sum out' of the profits, or a proportion of the same, as a compensation • for his services.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meehan v. Valentine