- 5 -
business or receive a distribution of any kind from the
business. James continued to operate the animal farm
business at least through December 31, 1993.
Following James' actions, on October 21, 1986, Darwin
sued James in the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania (hereinafter State court), alleging that the
business was an equally owned partnership. Darwin sought
dissolution of the partnership and an accounting. See
Tobias v. Tobias, No. 4583 (Ct. C.P. Dauphin County, Pa.
July 7, 1992). On July 7, 1992, the State court issued
its opinion holding that the animal farm business was a
partnership under Pennsylvania State law (hereinafter the
1992 State court opinion). The State court found that
Darwin had been "wrongfully excluded from the business"
and was entitled to dissolution of the partnership and
an accounting. In considering the question whether the
partnership was an equal partnership, the State court
found that James' contributions to the partnership far
exceeded Darwin's contributions and that an inequity would
be visited on James if the profits of the business were
shared equally. The State court ordered that each partner
be repaid his capital contributions before the profits of
the partnership were divided equally between them. The
order of the State court stated as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011