Joel J. Perrin, Administrator of the Estate of Horace J. Perrin, Deceased, Complainant, vs. Stephen V. R. Lepper, Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Sibley, Deceased; Anna Louise Fisk, Individually and as Volume 3, Pp. 2000-3000

Joel J. Perrin, Administrator of the Estate of Horace J. Perrin, Deceased, Complainant, vs. Stephen V. R. Lepper, Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Sibley, Deceased; Anna Louise Fisk, Individually and as Volume 3, Pp. 2000-3000

By (author) 

List price: US$15.84

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1888 edition. Excerpt: ...he didn't return them, excusing himself on the ground that he had sent them to Darius Perrin, at Rochester, to refresh his recollection.1; If the instrument of April 30, 1859, is genuine, it is certain that Darius Perrin did not become a partner until that date, and acquired no interest in the business or the property of prior date; and it is equally certain that the statements in the answers of 1869 and 1872, as to the time and manner in which, or the time as of which Darius Perrin became a partner, are rank perjury, and that Darius Perrin's affixing his signatures to duplicates Nos. 1 and 2 of the partnership articles (when--Heaven only knows), so as to make it appear that he signed them and became a member of the firm at the time of its organization, was the fraudulent manufacture of evidence to sustain this falsehood. 2, Rec., 477. +D Ex., 215. 12 Rec., 760, 761, 776; Swift's Circuit Court argument, 142-145. On the whole, I think that the latter alternative is the more probable, and that the instrument of April 30, 1859, is genuine notwithstanding all the suspicious circumstances. On the face of things, then, he became a partner April 30, 1859, and entitled thenceforth to share profits equally with the other partners, as long as he remained one, without contributing any capital or performing any services. But was he in fact a partner entitled to share profits? All the circumstances indicate the contrary. As I have said, the 8th article of the co-partnership agreement is a strange provision. Undoubtedly it is the invention of H. J. Perrin. How Sibley was induced to assent to it is a mystery. Probably he reasoned in this way: If H. J. Perrin thinks the use of Darius Perrin's name as a member of the firm is of such...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 26 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 1mm | 68g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 123688227X
  • 9781236882271