Summary

Zimmerman v. Harding — Opinion of the Court

No partner can demand the dissolution of a partnership which, either by a provision of the articles or by the nature of the business, has been constituted for a specified time, unless there should exist sufficient reason, such as when one of the partners fails to comply with his obligations, or when he becomes incapacitated for the partnership business, or any other similar cause, in the judgment, of the courts.
Source: Wikisource

Zimmerman v. Harding — Opinion of the Court

When she assumed the right to take possession for herself, and to carry on the business with the partnership property, Harding had a clear right to call her to account for his share in all of the joint property, and at his election to require her to account for the profits, by way of damages or otherwise, which he had been prevented from making by his wrongful exclusion from the business.
Source: Wikisource

Zimmerman v. Harding — Opinion of the Court

Neither is the remedy in equity for a breach of a partnership agreement exclusive. There may be at law a recovery of all the damages which result, including damages for profits prevented by a wrongful dissolution. Thus, if one member assumes to dissolve a partnership before the end of the term, the other may bring an action for damages for the breach, and recover not only his interest, but also his share of the profits which might have been made during the term.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature