TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Zebley v. Ostheimer

Zebley v. Ostheimer, 81 A.2d 546 (Pa. 1951)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 27, 1951
Docket
Nos. , No. 272
Judges
Bell, Chidsey, Drew, Jones, Ladner, Stearne, Stern
Citations
81 A.2d 546368 Pa. 211951 Pa. LEXIS 439

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion Per Curiam,

Ordinarily, in a partnership dissolution, the withdrawing partner is entitled to a full accounting of all the assets and earnings of the partnership, though of course the valuation extent and amount of the share payable to him is governed by the terms of dissolution as provided in the partnership agreement.

Here the court below endeavored to set up a formula gleaned from the agreement and so control the scope of the accounting. This endeavor, though commendable, is not free from difficulty in its practical application, because of the sharp division of the partners as to the correct interpretation of the dissolution provisions of the agreement as to which we feel an accounting on the basis of what the plaintiff claims he is entitled to may help clarify the problem.

*23 In the circumstances we think the defendant should state a complete account of all the detailed items of the partnership commissions received during the five years preceding the dissolution that plaintiff claims should be included (but are not so included in the present account) as part of the base on which he is entitled to 3/5 thereof under Class C, to be calculated under 11(b) of the agreement.

At the audit of this account, each item in dispute may then be passed upon, either individually or as a class, and allowed or disallowed, to the withdrawing partner, as the case may be, in the light of the requirements or interpretation of the agreement.

The record is remanded for further proceedings as indicated in this opinion.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1997: 12001: 219972026peak 2001 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Crutcher v. Smith (In re Crutcher)209 B.R. 347 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997)
  2. Poeta v. Jaffe51 Pa. D. & C.4th 78 (2001)
  3. Poeta v. Jaffe53 Pa. D. & C.4th 225 (2001)

Most recent

  1. Poeta v. Jaffe53 Pa. D. & C.4th 225 (2001)
  2. Poeta v. Jaffe51 Pa. D. & C.4th 78 (2001)
  3. Crutcher v. Smith (In re Crutcher)209 B.R. 347 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list