Supreme Court of Washington
330 P.2d 1079 (1958)
Theodore Richert (plaintiff) and C.C. Handly (defendant) established a logging partnership. Richert made a capital contribution of approximately $27,000 for supplies. Handly used his own equipment for the business and was paid for this service. Richert and Handly agreed to share the profits of the company equally but did not agree on any particular method of sharing partnership losses. Richert filed an action for dissolution and accounting. At the time of dissolution, the business had approximately $15,000 in net receipts, meaning about $12,000 in net loss including Richert’s contribution. The trial court found that neither Richert nor Handly were entitled to judgment against the other and thus dismissed Richert’s complaint. Richert appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Hunter, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.