3 Kan. 217 (Kan. 1865), Butcher v. Auld

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtCROZIER, C. J.
JudgeCROZIER, C. J. All the justices concurring.
Citation3 Kan. 217
PartiesEPHRAIM BUTCHER et al. v. JAMES C. AULD et al
Docket Number.
DateInvalid date

Page 217

3 Kan. 217 (Kan. 1865)

EPHRAIM BUTCHER et al.

v.

JAMES C. AULD et al

Supreme Court of Kansas

February, 1865

Page 218

[Syllabus Material]

Page 219

Error from Atchison County.

This action arose in Atchison county--was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error, November 14th, 1860, claiming a copartnership with them in the business of contractors in building of railroads, alleging the existence of long copartnership accounts, a want of assets on the closing up of the affairs of the copartnership in March, A. D. 1856, that the plaintiffs below had drawn from the proceeds of the firm $ 2,378.69, and the defendants below $ 7,244.90, claiming judgment for $ 2,433.10, with interest, &c.

The defendants set forth as defenses: 1st. The two years statute of limitations. 2d. An admission of the partnership, but that plaintiffs did not furnish their share of the capital stock--that the accounts were incorrect, praying an accounting and judgment. To this answer a demurrer and a reply were interposed. The action was, by the court, with consent of parties, ordered to be referred to John M. Price, as special master, to take a mutual account and report.

The main questions involved in this case arose upon the trial before the referee, the facts relating to which are fully set forth in the subjoined opinion.

The referee filed a report in which he found the facts and the law, and in favor of the plaintiffs below for $ 1,974.86, with interest. A bill of exceptions was allowed by the referee, presenting the rulings complained of in this proceeding, and exceptions were taken to his report.

Judgment reversed.

The case was argued in Supreme Court by G. W. Glick, for plaintiffs, and by Cassius G. Foster, for defendants in error.

Otis & Glick, for plaintiffs in error, submitted:

1st. The discretion of the court with relation to the admission of testimony, is controlled by certain fixed rules of law. 1 Gr. Ev., sec. 467; 2 Phil. Ev., 407-8-9; 2 C. & H. Notes to Phil. Ev., 701, note 360; 1 Shark Ev., 180; McCracken v. West, 17 Ohio 16, 24.

2d. As to admissibility of questions on cross-examination of plaintiff below as to what became of the proceeds of the company bonds which he stated he disposed of, was cited, Moody v. Rockwell, 17 Pick. 490, 491-2-3. Defendant had a right to inquire what became of the proceeds, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • 63 P. 974 (Okla. 1899), Goodrich v. Williamson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 25 Agosto 1899
    ...* * In fact the entire proceeding of allowing Noenninger to come in and defend was irregular from beginning to end." Boston v. Wright, 3 Kan. 220, was an attachment suit in which certain real estate was taken, and Wright appeared, and moved for a dissolution of the attachment. The moti......
1 cases
  • 63 P. 974 (Okla. 1899), Goodrich v. Williamson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 25 Agosto 1899
    ...* * In fact the entire proceeding of allowing Noenninger to come in and defend was irregular from beginning to end." Boston v. Wright, 3 Kan. 220, was an attachment suit in which certain real estate was taken, and Wright appeared, and moved for a dissolution of the attachment. The moti......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT