1. Cox v.

Hickman
Concept of Agency and Mutual Agency- basis of Section 6-presence of
only some essentials of partnership does not necessarily result in
partnership- Money lender sharing profits of a business of which he is not
a partner
Facts: Smith and Son carried on business of iron merchants. They got
into financial difficulties as a consequence of which they executed a deed
of arrangement with the creditors. According to the agreement 5
representatives of the creditors were appointed as5 trustess. They
included Cox and Wheatcroft. The business of Smith and Son was to be
managed by 5 trustees. The net income of the business was to be
distributed by these trustees amongst the general creditors of Smith and
Son. After all the creditors had been paid off the business was to be
returned to Smith and Son. While the business was being managed by
the trustees, the plaintiff, Hickman, supplied goods to the firm. One of
the trustees accepted bills of exchange drawn by Hickman undertaking
to pay the price of those goods. Hickman sued Cox and Wheatcroft to
recover the price of goods supplied by him.
Held: Although the creditors were sharing the profits and the business
was being managed by the trustees, still the relationship between Smith
and Son on the one hand and the creditors (including the trustees) on the
other was that of debtor and creditor and not that of partners and
therefore, Cox and Wheatcroft could not be made liable.
2.

v. Salomon- Creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the

company's shareholders to pay up outstanding debts

3. Byrne v. Reid- Incoming and Outgoing Partners (Minors)

A,B,C and D- 4 partners- authorised A, in the partnership deed to admit
his son, S, into partnership when he attained age of 21-A nominated him
partner in accordance with the deed and S accepted it-other partners
refused to recognise himHeld: Son accepting nomination had become a partner- no partnership
merely by nomination, option to become a partner or not- becomes
partner after he agrees to nomination, expressly or impliedly
4. Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghosh
Facts: A minor executed a mortgage of Rs. 20,000 and received Rs. 8,000
as advance. The mortgagee filed a suit for recovery of mortgage money
and for sale of property in case of default.
Judgement: The Privy Council held that an agreement involving a minor
was void ab

initio and so there could be no recovery of money by the mortgagee.

5. Prithvisingh Devising v. Hasan alli Vazirkhan

Facts:
The plaintiffs were partners in a firm, which was not registered.
They had some dealings with the defendants and in due course had
to file suit for recovery of property and for recovery of past rents.
On date of filing of suit, the firm was not registered. They
subsequently registered it.
Legal Issue:
What is the effect of subsequent registration on an existing suit?
Held:
The High Court of Bombay upheld the verdict of the Trial Court and
said that since a suit by a non-registered firm is barred by Sec.
69(2), subsequent registration cannot cure the defect. There must a
fresh suit.
6. Malhotra & Co. v. Ramesh Mistri
Facts:
The plaintiffs appealed against the order of a trial court which
prevented them from filing a fresh suit after registration of their
partnership firm.
Legal Issue:
Can a firm, which wrongly filed a suit before their registration file a
fresh suit after registration?
Held:
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that a firm has the
right to file a fresh suit after registration.

7. Sri Lakha Granites vs. Eklavya Singh & Anr. AIR 2011 Rajasthan
49
Ratio of the Case
Remedy for cancellation of partnership deed is available under the
general law before the Civil Court of Competent Jurisdiction and the
Registrar has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain any appeal or
application for declaring the reconstitution of partnership deeds as null
and void and cancel the entries made on the basis of such partnership
deeds. The remedy is to approach civil court under sec. 31 of Specific
Relief Act
8. Abbot v. Crumb- Dissolution of Firm/ Destroy mutual confidenceDissolution just and equitable

Adultery be one partner with another partner's wife was held to be a

good ground for the dissolution of the firm by the court.
9. Harrison v. TenantPRINCIPLE:Dissolution of the firm/ Persistent breach of partnership
agreement
FACTS:One of the partners in a firm of solicitors ignored the other two
partners and declined to settle their disputes by mutual consultation. It
was held that the conduct of one of the partners being destructive of
mutual confidence, which could not be restored, was a valid ground for
dissolution of the firm

10.

SNOW vs MILLFORD

PRINCIPLE:When a partner, other than the partner suing, is guilty of

conduct which is likely to affect prejudicially the business of the firm the
court may order dissolution.
FACTS:A partner of a firm of bankers committed adultery with several
women in the city where the business was carried on and his wife had
left him. The other partners applied for dissolution on this ground. The
adultery of a partner was conduct insufficient to warrant expelling that
partner or dissolving the partnership.
11. Essel vs. Hayward
Facts:
A partner of a firm was convicted for an offence under moral turpitude,
the English Court had passed the order for the dissolution of the firm.
Note:
The act of misappropiation of the money of a client by solicitor, an act of
adultery by a doctor, have also been found by the English Courts to fall
under the category of such acts, justifying dissolution of the firm
concerned.
12. Case: Cheesman vs. Price(1865)
Principle Involved:
Wilful or persistent breach
One partner willfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership
agreement or otherwise conducts himself in matters relating to the
partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable for the other
partner or partners to carry on business in partnership with him, then
they (the other partners) may apply to the court for a
dissolution.
Facts:

In this case, the offending partner had failed to enter small sums of
money received from customers into the accounts as he was required to
do under the agreement. This had happened 17 times. The court held
that there was persistent breach and ordered a dissolution.