Bass v. Dalton

• Decision Date: 21 September 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-155,84-155
• Citation: 218 Neb. 379,355 N.W.2d 225
• Parties: Robert L. BASS, M.D., Appellee, v. Kenneth R. DALTON, M.D., Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 225

355 N.W.2d 225

218 Neb. 379

Robert L. BASS, M.D., Appellee, v. Kenneth R. DALTON, M.D., Appellant.

No. 84-155.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Sept. 21, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Appeal and Error. Holdings of this court on questions presented to it in reviewing the proceedings of the trial court become the law of the case.

2. Appeal and Error. Where questions are presented to this court on appeal, our holdings conclusively settle, for the purpose of that litigation, all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication.

3. Partnerships. The dissolution of a partnership is but a preparatory step to its termination; a partnership continues after dissolution until the winding up of its affairs is completed.

4. Partnerships. Equal partners are to share equally in the net profits of the partnership until dissolution; from the date of dissolution on, the use of each partner's interest in the capital and assets of the partnership and the time and skill devoted by a partner to winding up the partnership are factors to be considered in determining each partner's share of profits.

5. Appeal and Error: Final Orders. Where substantial rights of the parties remain undetermined and the cause is retained for further action, the order is interlocutory and not final.

6. Appeal and Error: Final Orders: Accounting. In the absence of a final judgment, an order granting an accounting is not appealable.

Philip T. Morgan of Morgan & Morgan, Fullerton, for appellant.

Donald R. Treadway of Treadway & Bird, Albin, P.C., Fullerton, for appellee.

KRIVOSHA, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, HASTINGS, CAPORALE, and SHANAHAN, JJ.

CAPORALE, Justice.

In this appeal Kenneth R. Dalton, M.D., defendant-appellant, contends the trial court misinterpreted and misapplied the mandate issued in Bass v. Dalton, 213 Neb. 360, 329 N.W.2d 115 (1983) (Bass v. Dalton I ). We disagree with that contention and affirm.

The relevant facts concerning the dissolution of the partnership consisting of Dalton and Robert L. Bass, M.D., plaintiff-appellee, are set forth in Bass v. Dalton I and will not be reiterated here. It is sufficient to recall that Bass v. Dalton I held that the method of dissolving the partnership was such that Bass was not entitled to any portion of the partnership assets, but that the partnership's profits were a debt of the partnership to the partners rather than an asset of the partnership.

The trial court's adjudication on the accounting was controlled by the rule that holdings of this court on questions presented to it in reviewing the proceedings of the trial court become the law of the case. Where questions are presented to this court on appeal, our holdings conclusively settle, for the purpose of that litigation, all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. System Meat Co. v. Stewart, 190 Neb. 682, 211 N.W.2d 902 (1973). See, also, School Dist. of Gering v. Stannard, 196 Neb. 367, 242 N.W.2d 889 (1976).

The accounting herein established that the net profits of the partnership for services rendered prior to its dissolution, less costs and expenses, were $39,832.69. Accordingly, the trial court correctly entered judgment in favor of Bass for half that amount, $19,916.35.

The trial court's adjudication not only comported with the law of this case, it fully complied with the general law of this state. The dissolution of a partnership is but a preparatory step to its termination; a partnership continues after dissolution until the winding up of its affairs is...