Business Associations, Pages 163–165

Summers v. Dooley

Supreme Court of Idaho, 1971


The parties entered a partnership to operate a trash collection business, with each doing half the labor. Plaintiff wanted to hire an employee, but defendant refused. Plaintiff hired him anyway and paid him out-of-pocket. Defendant still refused to pay for him, and plaintiff eventually sued for $6,000 of the over $11,000 he had paid the employee.

Procedural History:

Trial court did not grant plaintiff his requested reimbursement.


Does an equal partner have the authority to be reimbursed for hiring a new employee over his partner's dissents?

Plaintiff's Argument:

Even if defendant did not consent, he received benefit from the employee and should thus be required to help pay for him by estoppel.


LexisNexis IconWestLaw LogoGoogle Scholar LogoPage 164

"Any difference arising as to ordinary matters connected with the partnership business may be decided by a majority of the partners . . ."


If a majority is required to make a decision, then nothing can change in the case of a division. Defendant voiced his objection to the hiring, so it would be unjust to permit plaintiff to recover when he was the only one who wanted it.


No, an equal partner requires the approval of his partner to make a decision. Affirmed.