Barnes v. Jones
Decision Date | 30 October 1883 |
Docket Number | 10,442 |
Citation | 91 Ind. 161 |
Parties | Barnes et al. v. Jones |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from an order of the Shelby Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
T. B Adams, L. T. Michener, B. F. Love, H. C. Morrison, N. B Berryman, --- Wiles, D. L. Wilson and A. F. Wray, for appellants.
O. J Glessner, E. K. Adams and L. J. Hackney, for appellee.
The complaint in this case charged that the plaintiff George S. Jones and the defendants James W. Barnes and Frank Drake, on the 16th day of January, 1882, entered into a contract in writing as follows:
(Signed) "Frank Drake.
The complaint further charged that afterwards, in said month of January, 1882, it was verbally agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants, that they should publish a six-column quarto weekly newspaper, to be known as "The Shelby Volunteer;" that all matters of business connected with said paper and its management should be submitted to all the members of the firm, and should be mutually agreed upon before any action would be taken with reference thereto; that a regular set of books should be kept in their office, in which all the business of the partnership should be promptly and accurately entered, which books should be open to the inspection of all the members of the firm; that to increase the capital stock each partner should pay in the sum of $ 50, which sums, together with all the moneys derived from their business, were to be deposited in the First National Bank of Shelbyville, and paid out only by checks from the firm, which was to be known by the name and style of Barnes & Drake; that as soon as the receipts from their business should exceed its expenses each member of the firm would be entitled to withdraw from the money on hand a sum equal to, and in lieu of, the $ 50 to be advanced by each to increase the capital stock; that the plaintiff and the defendant Barnes were to travel over and canvass Shelby and adjoining counties to obtain subscribers to and patronage for their newspaper; that Drake was to remain in the firm's office and transact all the current business connected with the publication of the newspaper; that the business of the paper should be economically transacted; that the plaintiff had in all things complied with his part of the contract of partnership, both written and verbal, but that the defendants had neglected and refused to comply with their part of said contract in many respects:
First. They had failed to furnish a suitable printing press.
Second. The defendant Barnes had failed to travel and canvass for subscribers and patronage to the paper.
Third. The defendants had failed to deposit all the money of the firm which had come into their hands in bank, and had withheld a part of such moneys without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff.
Fourth. The defendants had failed to enter on the books of the firm all the moneys received by them belonging to it, and had purposely and fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff the amount of money actually so received by them from time to time, as well as the sources from which much of it had been received.
Fifth. The defendants had falsely and improperly entered on the books of the firm the amounts of money respectively advanced by each partner to increase the capital stock of the enterprise.
Sixth. The defendants had paid out moneys belonging to the firm to persons to whom the firm was not indebted, and that for the purpose of cheating and defrauding the plaintiff had made false entries on the books of the firm concerning such payments.
Seventh. The defendants had wrongfully, and without the knowledge of the plaintiff, used the funds of the firm for their individual benefit, and had failed to charge themselves with the funds so used on the books of the firm, making several specifications of wrongful use of the partnership funds in that respect.
Eighth. The defendants had fraudulently appropriated divers sums...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Wabash Railroad Company v. Dykeman
...upon the sufficiency of the complaint for other or more general relief. Naylor v. Sidener, supra.; Pouder v. Tate, 96 Ind. 330; Barnes v. Jones, 91 Ind. 161. statement of the proceedings and so much of the pleadings as we deem necessary to the determination of this appeal are as follows: On......
-
Thornburg v. Buck
...of any kind, which is improperly in the record cannot be considered for any purpose. Norton v. State, 106 Ind. 163, 6 N.E. 126; Barnes v. Jones, 91 Ind. 161; Colee v. State, 75 Ind. 511. The reason this rule is, that material portions may be left out or new matters inserted. Its correctness......
-
Pressley v. Lamb
...term or vacation, without awaiting the final determination of the case. This is the construction given this section of the code in Barnes v. Jones, 91 Ind. 161, which an appeal from the appointment of a receiver by the judge, in vacation, where, as in the case of Alfred Harrison v. John C. ......
-
Sellers v. Stoffel
...appointment of a receiver, and that all will be taken into consideration in determining whether a receiver ought to be appointed. Barnes v. Jones, 91 Ind. 161;Pouder v. Tate, 96 Ind. 330.” While, however, the allegations in the application for a receiver may be supplemented and enlarged by ......