18 D.C. 80 (D.C.D.C. 1888), 5919, Kilbourn v. Latta

Docket Nº:In Equity. 5919.
Citation:18 D.C. 80
Opinion Judge:Mr. Chief Justice BINGHAM.
Party Name:HALLET KILBOURN ET AL. v. JAMES M. LATTA.
Attorney:Messrs. W. F. MATTINGLY and ENOCH TOTTEN for complainant. Messrs. J. M. WILSON and W. D. DAVIDGE for defendant.
Case Date:November 30, 1888
Court:Supreme Court of District of Columbia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 80

18 D.C. 80 (D.C.D.C. 1888)

HALLET KILBOURN ET AL.

v.

JAMES M. LATTA.

In Equity. No. 5919.

Supreme Court, District of Columbia.

November 30, 1888

Where defendant, one of a firm of real estate dealers, is decreed to account to his co-partners for profits made in joint operations with a third party in real estate without the knowledge or consent, and in fraud of the rights of his co-partners, and on such accounting complainants, by such evidence as they are able to obtain, trace into defendant's hands more than sufficient money derived from such operations to pay him for his share of the profits thereof, the burden is upon him to show by affirmative proof that as to certain of said operations he never received his share of the profits; and while it may be his misfortune it is no answer that he cannot now disclose and establish a full and complete account of the joint operations and of the adjustment of the accounts between himself and his illegal partner, so as to rebut the presumptions growing out of the evidence offered.

EXCEPTIONS to an auditor's report under a decree for an account.

THE FACTS are stated in the opinion.

Messrs. W. F. MATTINGLY and ENOCH TOTTEN for complainant.

Messrs. J. M. WILSON and W. D. DAVIDGE for defendant.

OPINION

Mr. Chief Justice BINGHAM.

In the case of Hallet Kilbourn and John F. Olmstead vs. James M. Latta, the complainants, Hallet Kilbourn and John F. Olmstead, state in their bill that in 1866 Hallet Kilbourn and John M. Latta entered into a co-partnership for the purpose of carrying on the business of real estate agents and brokers and the purchase and sale of real estate in the District of Columbia; that said co-partnership continued until the 1st day of January, 1872, when the same was dissolved; that during the existence of said partnership a large amount of business was transacted by said firm, and a thorough knowledge of the nature, value, and titles of real estate, and the general business connected with the purchase and sale of real estate in said District was acquired by the said Kilbourn and Latta respectively; that on the 1st day of January, 1872, a co-partnership was entered into by the complainants, Kilbourn and Olmstead, with the defendant, Latta, for the purpose of carrying on the same business in the city of Washington. Kilbourn's interest was three-eights, Latta's three-eighths, and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP