Legal Subject: Dissolution

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Greenock Rope-Work Company v Donald, Donald, and Company 1773 Partnership, Dissolution The Greenock Ropework Company was a partnership formed to manufacture rope and sail-duck. Two partners, William Donald and Henry White (alternatively spelled Whyte), served as managers of the partnership. The partnership decided that only one manager was necessary, so it appointed Henry White as the sole manager of the partnership. This action offended William Donald as well as William's brother, James Donald, another partner of Greenock Ropework Company. With a strained relationship with two of its partners, William and James Donald proposed that the Company should be dissolved, which it did. The parties disputed the proper method of dissolution. To balance the books prior to dissolution, the partnership sought to collect a debt owed by James and Robert Donalds and Company (named as suspenders), the same James Donald who was a partner of the Greenock Rope partnership. Because the rope-work company furnished some goods to that company. James and Robert Donalds and Company sought to suspend the debt on the grounds that James Donald, as partner of the Greenock Ropework Company, was actually owed money in excess of the debt claimed by the partnership.
Miliken v. Interlocutor 1802 Co-deudor, Dissolution, Debt, Promissory note In 1790, the pursuer lent some money to Love, Davidson, and Co. The debt was secured with a promissory note, which the pursuer had intended to be effective. Around 1792, two of the four shareholders, Andrew Crawford and John Love Senior, decided to transfer their interest in the company. In return of the transfer, the other shareholders agreed to pay all the debts of the company by February 1795. However, Love, Davidson and Co. was dissolved in 1794 and the pursuer had not received his payment by that time. The pursuer brought an action to alter the interlocutor with regards to the company insolvency and debts with the purpose to hold liable the retired shareholders of the promissory note, since he lent his money trusting that his debt was secured by all the shareholders as co-obligants.