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...