Citation network
Meehan Vs. Valentine
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 10, 1892
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 611 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Meehan v. ValentineSearch
-
U.S. 611 (1892) Meehan v. ValentineSearch
-
held within that state, and is subject to the revision of this Court on writ of error. Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman'sSearch
-
their common benefit, each contributing property or services and having a community of interest in the profits. Ward v. ThompsonSearch
-
Winship v. BankSearch
-
of United States, 5 Pet. 529, 30 U. S. 561 -562. And the Chief Justice referred to Waugh v. CarverSearch
-
Pott v. EytonSearch
-
Bostwick v. ChampionSearch
-
Burckle v. EckartSearch
-
Denny v. CabotSearch
-
Fitch v. HarringtonSearch
-
Brundred v. MuzzySearch
-
the person sought to be charged as a partner took part of the profits as a principal, or only as an agent. Benjamin v. PorteusSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Loomis v. MarshallSearch
-
Hallet v. DesbanSearch
-
How. 536, 65 U. S. 542 -543. See also Seymour v. FreerSearch
-
Edwards v. TracySearch
-
Burnett v. SnyderSearch
-
as a dormant partner for the acts of the active partners as depending on the law of principal and agent. Beckham v. DrakeSearch
-
Wilson v. WhiteheadSearch
-
Ernest v. NichollsSearch
-
Cox v. HickmanSearch
-
H.L.Cas. 268, 312. And in Cox v. HickmanSearch
-
his liability as a partner is whether he has authorized the managers of the business to carry it on in his behalf. Cox v. HickmanSearch
-
H.L.Cas. 268, 304, 306, 312-313, s.c. nom. Wheatcroft v. HickmanSearch
-
of application than the old one, for in the first case which arose afterwards, one judge of three dissented, Kilshaw v. JukesSearch
-
judgment of four judges in the Common Bench was reversed by four judges against two in the Exchequer Chamber, Bullen v. SharpSearch
-
as agency results from partnership, rather than partnership from agency. Kelly, C.B., and Cleasby, B., in Holme v. HammondSearch
-
Jessel, M.R., in Pooley v. DriverSearch
-
commonly so regarded by men of business, might be so treated in interpreting a commercial contract. Bank of Buffalo v. ThompsonSearch
-
N.Y. 280. In other respects, however, the rule laid down in Cox v. HickmanSearch
-
Mollow v. CourtSearch
-
Ross v. ParkynsSearch
-
Badeley v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Bank, 38 Ch.D. 238. See also Davis v. PatrickSearch
-
Eastman v. ClarkSearch
-
Wild v. DavenportSearch
-
Seabury v. BollesSearch
-
Morgan v. FarrelSearch
-
receive a certain portion of the profits thereof by way of rent does not make him a partner with the lessee. Perine v. HankinsonSearch
-
Holmes v. OldSearch
-
Beecher v. BushSearch
-
lieu of or in addition to interest by way of compensation for a loan of money, has of itself no greater effect. Wilson v. EdmondsSearch
-
Richardson v. HughittSearch
-
Curry v. FowlerSearch
-
Cassidy v. HallSearch
-
Smith v. KnightSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Meehan v. ValentineSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial