Facts: As M/s. Smith and son, Mr Smith and his son had a partnership firm. Due to financial problems, they signed an agreement assigning the firm to their creditors. The deal stated that the company would be run by five trustees acting as the creditors' representatives. Trustees Cox and Haywood were among them. The trustees were in charge of distributing the net earnings. The business had to be given back to M/s. Smith and son once all of the creditors had been paid off. While the company was being run by the trustees, Hickman provided the company with supplies and generated a bill that was accepted by Haywood, meaning Haywood had agreed to pay. Cox refused to take up the trusteeship and stayed out of the deal. Later a lawsuit was filed by Hickman for non-payment of dues on both Haywood and Cox, considering them as partners.
Issue: Whether the trustees assigned were in a partnership relationship, making Cox liable as a partner of the business.
Held: According to the ruling, they were not partners. Thus Cox was exempt from liability. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the creditors reached a consensus on how their claims should be compensated. They were not partners as a result. They didn't plan to become accountable to one another or the company.
Comments