Hanover and George each bring separate actions against Black as copartner for the alleged tort committed by Brown against each. What judgments as to each?
| ♥ 0 |
Hanover leased a portion of his farm to Brown and Black, doing business as the Colorite Hatchery. Brown went upon the premises to remove certain chicken sheds that he and Black had placed there for hatchery purposes. Thinking that Brown intended to remove certain other sheds, which were Hanover’s property, Hanover accosted Brown, who willfully struck Hanover and knocked him down. Brown then ran to the Colorite truck, which he had previously loaded with chicken coops, and drove back to the hatchery. On the way, he picked up George, who was hitchhiking to the city to look for a job. Brown was driving at seventy miles an hour down the highway. At an open intersection with another highway, Brown in his hurry ran a stop sign, striking another vehicle. The collision caused severe injuries to George. Immediately thereafter, the partnership was dissolved, and Brown was insolvent. Hanover and George each bring separate actions against Black as copartner for the alleged tort committed by Brown against each. What judgments as to each? |
Explanation
Throughout the case, Individual G never had any partnership. For this reason, Individual G does not have the right to recover any sum of money related to it.
Individual H can recover from Individual BL as the disagreement and quarreling were in relation to partnership property.
In this case, Individual BR, who was a partner, committed a tort.
Verified Answer
This case depends on the torts of partnership.
According to it, Individual H can recover from Individual BL.
Individual G cannot interfere in the case as it does not hold the status of the partner in the agreement.
