Summers v. Dooley
94 Idaho 87, 481 P.2d 318 (1971).
Summers and Dooley owned a trash collecting business. Dooley became unable to work and hired an employee to take his place. A few years later, Summers talked to Dooley about hiring a third employee. Even though Dooley refused, Summers hired him anyway and paid him out of his own pocket.
- Summers eventually sued Dooley because he was incurring the expenses on his own and wanted to be reimbursed.
- He argued that Dooley was estopped from denying the need and value of the employee, because he was reaping the benefits.
The trial court granted Summers only partial relief, so he appealed.
Whether the partnership should bear the cost of Summers’ objected-to hiring.
The expense was incurred for Summers’ individual benefitand not for the benefit of the partnership.
- Furthermore, Dooley continually voiced his objection to the hiring.
Rule: As between partners and NO third party, this controls: “A difference arising as to a matter in the ordinary course of business of a partnership may be decided by a majority of the partners.”
Compare to National Biscuit Company v. Stroud.