Summers v. Dooley
94 Idaho 87, 481 P.2d 318 (1971).

Facts:
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.

History:
The trial court granted Summers only partial relief, so he appealed.

Issue:
Whether the partnership should bear the cost of Summers’ objected-to hiring.

Holding:
No.

Reasoning:
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.