Richert v. Handly
Washington Supreme Court
50 Wash. 2d 356, 311 P.2d 417 (1957)
- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
Theodore Richert (plaintiff) and C. C. Handly (defendant) entered into an oral agreement to form a logging partnership. Richert agreed to fund the purchase of approximately 1.7 million feet of timber, and Handley agreed to transport the timber. Richert and Handly agreed that any profit or loss would be shared equally. There was no agreed-upon requirement that Handly should contribute capital to the purchase of the lumber. Richert spent approximately $26,000 for the purchase of the timber and incidental expenses. Handly managed and executed the transportation of the timber. The timber was sold at a loss. From the proceeds of the sale, Handly withdrew approximately $7,000 and Richert withdrew $10,000. Richert filed a lawsuit alleging that the money he had provided when he purchased the timber should be repaid as expenses before Handly could receive a disbursement from the proceeds of the sale. The court determined that Handly and Richert had agreed to share profits and were entitled to an even share of the proceeds of the sale. Richert was ordered to pay Handly approximately $1,500 so that each party received the same amount, approximately $8,500, from the proceeds of the sale. Richert appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rosellini, 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. 46,300 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.
