TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Terry v. Carter

John Terry v. Pendleton Carter

Terry v. Carter, 25 Miss. 168 (1852)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Mississippi Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1852
Judges
Fisher
Citations
25 Miss. 168
Headnotes
An action at law to recover damages for a breach of the terms of a contract, may be sustained by one copartner against another.
Summary
In error from the circuit court of De Soto county; Hon. Hugh R. Miller, judge. The facts are contained in the opinion of the court. cited Kennedy v. McFaden, 3 Har. & Johns. 194, and case cited.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fisher

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

Mr. Justice Fisher

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in the circuit court of *169 De Soto county, to recover damages for a breach of the following agreement as set out in the declaration, to wit, " The said plaintiff and defendant were to work and crop together on the same farm, in the year 1847, on the following terms and conditions, to wit, the defendant was to furnish the ground, horses, gear, ploughs, &c., and the said plaintiff was to work upon said farm and in said crop himself as a hand, and out of the proceeds of said crop, raised as aforesaid, the said plaintiff and defendant were to severally take and have as follows, to wit, the plaintiff was to have one sixth part of all the cotton, corn fodder, &c., and the defendant the remainder.” The declaration then states that the plaintiff performed the contract as fully on his part as the defendant would permit him; that he worked and labored two or three months, when defendant dismissed him, and refused to permit said defendant to perform his part of the contract. The declaration was demurred to, and demurrer overruled by the- court. The main cause of demurrer is, that the contract shows a copartnership, and that the action for a breach thereof cannot be sustained at law.

This position is untenable, conceding that there was a co-partnership. An action may be sustained by one copartner, at law, to recover damages for a breach of the articles or terms, off the contract. 8 Mass. 464 ; 4 Bibb, 418 ; Gow on Partnership, 70, 71.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1867–1868: 11877–1878: 11883–1884: 11941–1942: 118672026peak 1867 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State Street Trust Co. v. Hall41 N.E.2d 30 (Mass. 1942)
  2. Waller v. State40 Ala. 325 (1867)
  3. Jewett v. Brooks134 Mass. 505 (1883)
  4. Robinson v. Bullock58 Ala. 618 (1877)

Most recent

  1. State Street Trust Co. v. Hall41 N.E.2d 30 (Mass. 1942)
  2. Jewett v. Brooks134 Mass. 505 (1883)
  3. Robinson v. Bullock58 Ala. 618 (1877)
  4. Waller v. State40 Ala. 325 (1867)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Thomas v. Pyke, 7 Ky. 418 (1816) 2

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