HARRY M. LORBACH
v.
DON D. ECKIS AND ZELLA M. ECKIS, HIS WIFE AND JOHN A. BOUVIER, JR.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision dismissing a complaint seeking an accounting and declaration of a partnership. The court found the record supported the lower court's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a partnership.
No, the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations of his bill of complaint, and therefore, the lower court correctly dismissed the case.
“The purpose of the suit was to secure an accounting from the defendants, and a decree of the court finding that a partnership relation existed between the parties, Lorbach and Eckis and that each as partners had an equal share in the assets and business of the enterprise which was the subject matter of the litigation.”
Describes the plaintiff's objective in filing the lawsuit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Harry M. Lorbach, filed a lawsuit seeking an accounting and a declaration that a partnership existed between himself and the defendants…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Partnership Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
From a decree dismissing a bill of complaint at final hearing the plaintiff brings this appeal. The purpose of the suit was to secure an accounting from the defendants, and a decree of the court finding that a partnership relation existed between the parties, Lorbach and Eckis and that each as partners had an equal share in the assets and business of the enterprise which was the subject matter of the litigation. The special master found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the allegations of the bill of complaint. On final hearing the chancellor sustained the findings of the special master and entered a final decree dismissing the bill of complaint. The record amply supports the decree that was rendered. The decree appealed from must therefore be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denco, Inc. v. Belk, 97 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1957)…re placed on inquiry as to the full terms and conditions of the lease, including a provision granting a right of first refusal of purchase to the lessee if the lessor decides to sell the property during the term of the lease. Mercer v. Miller, 1946, 157 Fla. 78, 24 So. 2d 893; Gilbert v. Van Kleeck, 3rd Dept. 1954, 284 App.Div. 611, 132 N.Y.S.2d 580. Also cf. Stein v. Green, 1955, 6 Ill.2d 234, 128 N.E. 2d 743 and cf. McRae v. McMinn, 1880, 17 Fla. 876. We think the law and every concept of equity and good…
-
Winston v. J. D. Gramm, Inc., 277 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…he trial court constituted a sufficient basis for the court to exercise its authority to enjoin the eviction of the appellee. See Denco, Inc. v. Belk, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 261; Gill v. Livingston, 158 Fla. 577, 29 So. 2d 631 (1947); Mercer v. Miller, 157 Fla. 78, 24 So. 2d 893 (1946); DuPuis v. 79th Street Hotel, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 532. Affirmed.…