[Download] "John Summers v. E. A. Dooley" by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10325 * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: John Summers v. E. A. Dooley
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10325
- Release Date : January 24, 1971
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
This lawsuit, tried in the district court, involves a claim by one partner against the other for $6,000. The complaining partner
asserts that he has been required to pay out more than $11,000 in expenses without any reimbursement from either the partnership
funds or his partner. The expenditure in question was incurred by the complaining partner (John Summers, plaintiff-appellant)
for the purpose of hiring an additional employee. The trial court denied him any relief except for ordering that he be entitled
to one half $966.72 which it found to be a legitimate partnership expense. The pertinent facts leading to this lawsuit are as follows. Summers entered a partnership agreement with Dooley (defendant-respondent)
in 1958 for the purpose of operating a trash collection business. The business was operated by the two men and when either
was unable to work, the non-working partner provided a replacement at his own expense. In 1962, Dooley became unable to work
and, at his own expense, hired an employee to take his place. In July, 1966, Summers approached his partner Dooley regarding
the hiring of an additional employee but Dooley refused. Nevertheless, on his own initiative, Summers hired the man and paid
him out of his own pocket. Dooley, upon discovering that Summers had hired an additional man, objected, stating that he did
not feel additional labor was necessary and refused to pay for the new employee out of the partnership funds. Summers continued
to operate the business using the third man and in October of 1967 instituted suit in the district court for $6,000 against
his partner, the gravamen of the complaint being that Summers has been required to pay out more than $11,000 in expenses,
incurred in the hiring of the additional man, without any reimbursement from either the partnership funds or his partner.
After trial before the court, sitting without a jury, Summers was granted only partial relief[Footnote 1] and he has appealed.
He urges in essence that the trial court erred by failing to conclude that he should be reimbursed for expenses and costs
connected in the employment of extra help in the partnership business.