Liggett v. Hamilton

Liggett v. Hamilton

Where winding up duties are apportioned between partners and each undertakes his share, a partner cannot recover remuneration for having performed a greater or more onerous share absent an express or implied agreement to pay; here an implied agreement to perform gratuitously was found, so no payment was due.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 665
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Thomas Liggett; Plaintiff/respondent: Henry Hamilton
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1895
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (partnership Dissolution) / Judgment on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Partnership Dissolution, Winding Up, Remuneration for Extra Services, Implied Agreement
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Partnership Law Contract Law Partnership Dissolution Winding Up Remuneration for Extra Services Implied Agreement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Liggett

Defendant/appellant

Henry Hamilton

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (partnership Dissolution) / Judgment on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partner may claim remuneration for extra services in winding up after dissolution when duties were apportioned
  2. 2 Whether an agreement to pay can be implied from the parties' conduct
  3. 3 Whether apportionment of winding up duties precludes recovery for unequal labor

Ratio Decidendi

Where winding up duties are apportioned between partners and each undertakes his share, a partner cannot recover remuneration for having performed a greater or more onerous share absent an express or implied agreement to pay; here an implied agreement to perform gratuitously was found, so no payment was due.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Claim for $25 part of arbitration fees refused under rule de minimis non curat lex.