Allen Smith Investment Properties, LLC v. Barbarry Properties, LLC Since defendant Barbarry Properties is a general partner in the parties’ limited partnership, Barbarry has an equal right with the partnership’s other general partners to possess partnership property for partnership purposes.
EHP Land Co. v. Bosher When a partner decided to withdraw from the parties’ partnership, the partnership agreement required the partnership to pay the withdrawing partner an amount that was based in part on the partnership’s “inventory”, but the agreement did not define that term. The trial court correctly applied the ordinary meaning of “inventory.”
EHP Land Co. v. Bosher When a partner decided to withdraw from the parties’ partnership, the partnership agreement required the partnership to pay the withdrawing partner an amount that was based in part on the partnership’s “inventory”, but the agreement did not define that term. The trial court correctly applied the ordinary meaning of “inventory.”
Best Cartage, Inc. v. Stonewall Packaging, LLC Plaintiff alleged the two defendants were working together to vertically integrate their production of cardboard. The allegations of defendants’ combined efforts, including the fact that one of defendant Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co.’s officers signed the contract at issue on behalf of defendant Stonewall Packaging, were sufficient to state claims of partnership by estoppel, de facto partnership, and joint venture. However, plaintiff failed to allege the wrongdoing needed to state a claim for piercing the corporate veil.
Best Cartage, Inc. v. Stonewall Packaging, LLC Knowing about defendant Stonewall Packaging, LLC's partnership with defendant Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co., plaintiff nevertheless chose to enter into a contract with Stonewall alone. Plaintiff is bound by that choice and has no breach of contract claim against Jackson.
Williams Overman Pierce, LLP v. Duncan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-15-0369, 8 pp.) (James L. Gale, J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, after being involuntarily terminated from the plaintiff-partnership, defendant can avoid the parties’ covenant not to compete if he pays the [...]
Coremin v. McNamara. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-15-1038, 13 pp.) (Ben F. Tennille, Ch.J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Holding: Where the parties’ partnership was at will, either partner could end the partnership, regardless of motive, without breaching the partnership agreement. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to information about the business’ profits after the partnership ended, nor is [...]
Leiber v. Arboretum Joint Venture, LLC. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-15-0847, 34 pp.) (Ben Tennille, J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Holding: For 15 years, plaintiff’s $445,000 investment in the defendant-investment ventures was handled by Wolfram Count von Spreti, and plaintiff never complained to defendants about this arrangement. Defendants were entitled to treat Spreti as plaintiff’s agent. Summary [...]
White v. Thompson. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0431, 22 pp.) (James A. Wynn Jr., J.) (Sam Ervin IV, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) Appealed from Columbus County Superior Court. (Douglas B. Sasser, J.) N.C. App. Holding: A partner’s internal partnership acts were not in or affecting commerce, meaning that the trial court erred [...]
Gaskin v. J.S. Proctor Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0369, 16 pp.) (Donna S. Stroud, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court. (Albert Diaz, J.) N.C. App. Holding: Like a shareholder, before a limited partner can sue his general partners, he must allege a special duty owed to him or a distinct injury suffered by him [...]
