brief a case (Estate of Bean V. Hazel, 972 S.W.2d 290 )

brief a case (State of Kansas v. Lawrence347 P.3d 240)

Down bellow is the case that I briefed before

The name of the case was (57 Barb. 127)

So please follow the same format and brief the case: Estate of Bean V. Hazel, 972 S.W.2d 290

Facts:

The Plaintiff, Comstock claimed that he had no knowledge of Buchanan selling the stocks, therefore he couldn't consent

The defendant, Buchanan transferred stock owned by the partnership without the consent of his partner

Buchanan represented that he had the consent of his partner

Comstock is entitled to be repaid the money lost and given an additional $50

Issue:

Should a partner of a partnership be able to transfer/sell/surrender stocks of the company without the consent of his business partner?

Holding:

No

Reason:

When in a partnership business transactions should be consented by both members of the business, or at knowledgeable by all members. It becomes fraud when you try to keep money made by the company to yourself.