Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1897

Karrick v. Hannaman

168 U.S. 328 | 18 S. Ct. 135 | 42 L. Ed. 484 | 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1728

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that a partner cannot exclude a copartner, continue using partnership assets, and keep the resulting profits—even if the partnership relation has been dissolved.

Background

Karrick and Hannaman formed a partnership to operate a business for five years, from February 3, 1886, to February 3, 1891. Karrick was to contribute $5,000, borrowed from Hannaman and evidenced by a note due at the end of the term; Hannaman was to contribute $20,000. Karrick was to manage the business, the partners were to share profits and losses equally, and neither was to receive compensation for services beyond his share of profits. Each could withdraw up to $125 per month for personal expenses.

The venture operated for about two years. On February 1, 1888, Hannaman took exclusive control of the partnership business and assets, excluded Karrick despite Karrick's willingness to continue performing, and thereafter operated the business profitably. In 1890, before the agreed five-year term expired and without Karrick's consent, Hannaman sold all partnership property to a stranger.

The trial court required Hannaman to account to Karrick for Karrick's capital contribution, half the net profits earned while Hannaman ran the business alone, and half certain improper later disbursements, subject to deduction of Karrick's note. The Supreme Court of the Territory affirmed but reduced the recovery by allowing Hannaman the monthly personal-expense withdrawals permitted by the partnership agreement. Hannaman appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court could reexamine disputed factual findings made by the Supreme Court of the Territory.

Holding

No. On appeal from a territorial supreme court, the Court's review was limited to whether the facts found supported the judgment.

Reasoning

Much of Hannaman's argument challenged the evidence and the factual conclusions drawn below. The Court treated those disputes as outside its appellate authority. It could consider only whether the facts as found by the territorial court legally sustained the decree.

Issue #2

Whether one partner may end the partnership relation before the expiration of a definite partnership term without the other partner's consent.

Holding

A partner's unilateral action may end the partnership relation even during a fixed term, although doing so breaches the partnership agreement and can make that partner liable in damages; in any event, the Court did not treat this question as necessary to the judgment.

Reasoning

A partnership is a personal relationship grounded in mutual confidence, cooperation, and mutual agency. Because no person can be forced into a continuing business association with another, the Court explained that the partnership relation and each partner's authority to act for the firm can be terminated by a partner's unilateral action, even if the partnership articles specify a fixed duration.

The important distinction is between ending the relationship and escaping contractual responsibility. In a partnership at will, dissolution ordinarily is not a breach. In a term partnership, a partner who dissolves the venture before the agreed end date violates the agreement and may owe the other partner damages measured by the profits the other partner would otherwise have received.

Equity ordinarily will not specifically compel partners to continue performing a partnership agreement. The relationship is too personal for a court to require ongoing cooperation, particularly where, as here, one partner was expected to supply personal management services and the other most of the capital. The Court nevertheless stated that it need not definitively resolve whether the partnership was technically dissolved on February 1, 1888, because Karrick prevailed under either view.

Issue #3

Whether a partner who excludes a copartner and continues the business using partnership assets may retain the resulting profits for himself.

Holding

No. Hannaman remained accountable to Karrick for Karrick's share of the partnership property and profits, notwithstanding any dissolution of the partnership.

Reasoning

Dissolution does not permit one partner to appropriate the partnership's assets or the benefits of its joint enterprise. A partner cannot, by excluding the other partner, treat the venture as ended for the excluded partner while keeping the business and its value entirely for himself.

A partner who wrongfully ends a term partnership may be liable at law for the lost profits caused by the breach. In equity, when that partner continues the business with partnership property, the excluded partner may elect to demand an accounting for the profits derived from that use, subject to appropriate allowances.

The findings established that Hannaman excluded Karrick, ran the business profitably for two additional years, and then sold the partnership property without Karrick's knowledge or consent. Those facts supported the decree charging Hannaman with Karrick's share of the profits and other amounts attributable to the partnership property.

Issue #4

Whether Karrick's recovery should be reduced because he did not perform the management services promised by the partnership agreement after Hannaman excluded him.

Holding

No. Hannaman could not obtain such a reduction on this record.

Reasoning

Hannaman neither sought nor obtained a finding on the value of Karrick's unperformed services. More fundamentally, Hannaman had refused to allow Karrick to perform those services even though Karrick was ready and willing to do so.

Hannaman had also maintained below that Karrick's managerial services had no value to the partnership. Having excluded Karrick and taken that position, Hannaman showed no basis for deducting anything from Karrick's share of the profits or otherwise modifying the decree.