Maryland Reports; Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Maryland Volume 85 (Paperback)


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. 1897 edition. Excerpt: ...and therefore unable, as known by Schleisner, to give this business his personal attention and supervision." The copartnership agreement contains the following provision: (Section 8). "Nor shall said partners by himsvlf or with any other person whomsoever, during the continuance: of said partnership, directly or indirectly engage in any other' mercantile pursuit; but his time and attention shall be clevoted to the partnership which is by these articles formed." In other words, the complainant, without any explanation, files his bill in which he admits that he has failed to perform his part of the contract in one of its most important particulars, and at the same time prays the Court to decree specific performance of the contract as against the defendant. It will be observed that the principal charge made against the defendant is his alleged failure and incapacity to give the business his personal attention, while at the same time the complainant admits that he has incapacitated himself from carrying out the partnership agreement, and has violated this very provision which he seeks to enforce against the defendant. Surely under these circumstances, specific performance cannot be decreed, beeause the very first requirement upon which the doctrine of specific performance rests, is that the complainant must show that he has fully performed everything required of him by the contract. O'Brien ROBERTS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The facts out of which this controversy arises, are substantially, that on the 6th of February, 1896, Lewis A. Gusdorff, the appellant, and Solomo11 Schleisner, the appellee, agreed in writing under seal, to become partners in the general merchandising business for the term of...

R333

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles3330
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product 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. 1897 edition. Excerpt: ...and therefore unable, as known by Schleisner, to give this business his personal attention and supervision." The copartnership agreement contains the following provision: (Section 8). "Nor shall said partners by himsvlf or with any other person whomsoever, during the continuance: of said partnership, directly or indirectly engage in any other' mercantile pursuit; but his time and attention shall be clevoted to the partnership which is by these articles formed." In other words, the complainant, without any explanation, files his bill in which he admits that he has failed to perform his part of the contract in one of its most important particulars, and at the same time prays the Court to decree specific performance of the contract as against the defendant. It will be observed that the principal charge made against the defendant is his alleged failure and incapacity to give the business his personal attention, while at the same time the complainant admits that he has incapacitated himself from carrying out the partnership agreement, and has violated this very provision which he seeks to enforce against the defendant. Surely under these circumstances, specific performance cannot be decreed, beeause the very first requirement upon which the doctrine of specific performance rests, is that the complainant must show that he has fully performed everything required of him by the contract. O'Brien ROBERTS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The facts out of which this controversy arises, are substantially, that on the 6th of February, 1896, Lewis A. Gusdorff, the appellant, and Solomo11 Schleisner, the appellee, agreed in writing under seal, to become partners in the general merchandising business for the term of...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

September 2013

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

September 2013

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 14mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

260

ISBN-13

978-1-236-94519-8

Barcode

9781236945198

Categories

LSN

1-236-94519-0



Trending On Loot