Cude v. Couch
Tennessee Supreme Court
588 S. W.2d 554 (1979)
- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
In 1965, Nathan Couch (defendant) and J. R. Cude (plaintiff) formed a partnership to operate a laundry. The laundry was operated on a month-to-month basis out of a building owned by Couch that also housed Couch’s car dealership. After approximately eight years, Couch filed for dissolution of the partnership. As part of the dissolution, the laundry equipment was sold at a public sale. In connection with the sale, Couch indicated that he would not continue to lease the premises to the buyer of the equipment. The person purchasing the equipment would need to remove it from the building. At the public sale, Cude was unsuccessful in his bids to purchase the equipment. The equipment was sold for $800 to Louis Platkin. It was subsequently discovered that Platkin was as an agent of Couch, bidding on the equipment on behalf of Couch. Couch and his son continued to operate a laundry out of the same space, using the equipment Platkin purchased on their behalf. Cude petitioned the court to set aside the equipment sale, alleging that Couch had breached his duty to Cude and the partnership by purchasing the laundry equipment clandestinely through Platkin. The trial court and then the court of appeals decided that Couch had not breached any duty to Cude or the partnership. Cude appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cooper, J.)
Dissent (Henry, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
