Ashley v. Williams

• Decision Date: 09 April 1889
• Citation: 21 P. 556,17 Or. 441
• Parties: ASHLEY v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

21 P. 556

17 Or. 441

ASHLEY v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 9, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In a suit for a partnership accounting, where there are issues as to the existence of the partnership, and the state of its affairs and business, or state of the accounts between the partners, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff; and, if he cannot furnish sufficient evidence to enable the court to state a partnership account, his suit necessarily fails to that extent.

In such case, if necessary to close up the business, the court will determine that the accounts are closed, and that neither party shall recover anything against the other on account thereof, and that the property of the firm be sold, and after paying the costs, the proceeds be divided according to the interests of the members of such firm.

E.B Williams, for appellant.

A.H Adams, for respondent.

STRAHAN J.

This is a suit to dissolve a partnership and for an accounting. The plaintiff had a decree in the court below, from which the defendant has appealed. Pending the appeal, the defendant died, and his administrator was substituted. The existence of the partnership is denied, and that question presents the principal contention. A great deal of evidence was submitted on each side which we have carefully considered; but it is impossible to determine from this evidence, so as to leave the mind satisfied with the result, whether a partnership existed between these parties or not. But inasmuch as the referee and the court below both found that there was a partnership, we have concluded not to change it. The existence of the partnership being established, it becomes necessary to inquire what relief shall be awarded. An accounting of some kind is always necessary upon a dissolution of a partnership; otherwise its affairs remain unsettled; but the court has no means of reaching a conclusion as to the true state of its affairs and business only from the evidence offered. And where there are issues as to the existence of the partnership, and the condition of its accounts and business, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and, if he cannot furnish sufficient evidence to enable the court to state a partnership account, his suit necessarily fails. Maupin v. Daniel, 3 Tenn.Ch. 223; Nims v. Nims, 1 South.Rep. 527; Marvin v Hampton, 18 Fla. 131. In this case the only evidence...