Case ID: ri_22/html/0376-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abel T. Atherton vs. W. H. Goldsmith.
    PROVIDENCE
    FEBRUARY 1, 1901.
    ^ Present : Stiness, C. J., Tillinghast and Douglas, JJ.
    (1) Assumpsit. Acaowut. Partnership.
    
    A. and B. agreed to share the gains and losses of a particular adventure. A. furnished a certain sum of money and loaned B. an equal amount to enable him to furnish his share of the capital Held, that assumpsit would lie in favor of A. to recover the money loaned.
    Assumpsit. The facts appear in the opinion.
    Heard on p'etition of plaintiff for a new trial, and new trial granted.
   Per Curiam.

The nonsuit in this case was erroneously granted.

In Dowling v. Clarke, 13 R. I. 134, the claim was for an unascertained balance claimed to be due on a partnership account, and for this it was held that assumpsit would not lie.

In Fry v. Potter, 12 R. I. 542, however, a case like the present one, it was held that assumpsit would lie, because, there being no general copartnership, but only an agreement to share the gains and losses of a particular adventure, and nothing outstanding to be adjusted, the transaction was closed and the losses ascertained.

Jacob W. Mathewson, and George T. Broivn, for plaintiff.

Edward D. Bassett, for defendant.

This case is even stronger, from the plaintiff’s testimony that the money sued for was a loan to the defendant to enable him to the speculation of purchasing options on land.

Petition for new trial granted.