Case ID: md_130/html/0697-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stockbridge, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARRY L. CASSARD vs. MORRIS BAUMGARTEN and AARON KAUFMAN, Co-Partners, Trading as Baumgarten & Co.
    Partnership: hill for dicovery; testimony too vague.
    
    
      A bill of complaint was filed to procure a discovery and accounting between tbe parties, tbe theory of the complainant being that the parties were partners in a joint venture; the relation was denied by the defendant, and the testimony of the complainant was held to be too vague and indefinite to give the court equitable jurisdiction on the ground of partnership; as the answer was full enough to serve as a foundation for a suit at law, it was further held, there was no need for relief by way of discovery, and the bill was dismissed.
    
      Decided June 26th, 1917.
    
    Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City. (Heuisdbr, J.)
    The cause was argued before Boyd, C. J., Briscoe, Burke, Thomas, Pattison and Stockbridge, JJ.
    
      Wm. Milnes Maloy (with Maloy & Brady on the brief), for the appellant.
    
      Julius II. Wyman and Jacob S. New, for the appellees.
   Stockbridge, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court, affirming the decree, with costs.