View opinion on Lexis Advance"Any difference arising as to ordinary matters connected with the partnership business may be decided by a majority of the partners . . ."
Business Associations, Pages 163–165
Summers v. Dooley
Supreme Court of Idaho, 1971
Facts:
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.
Issue:
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.
Rule:
Page 164
Reasoning:
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.
Holding:
No, an equal partner requires the approval of his partner to make a decision. Affirmed.