Belding v. Belding

Citation192 N.E. 917,358 Ill. 216
Decision Date05 December 1934
Docket NumberNo. 22338.,22338.
PartiesBELDING v. BELDING et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Appellate Court, Second District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Du Page County; F. W. Shepherd, Judge.

Suit by Edith L. Belding, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Wilbert D. Belding, deceased, against Edgar E. Belding and others. On death of Edgar E. Belding his representatives were substituted. Decree for an accounting was affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause remanded with directions by the Appellate Court (272 Ill. App. 196), and complainant brings certiorari.

Judgment of Appellate Court reversed, and cause remanded to circuit court, with directions.Sylvester E. Quindry and Walter E. Moss, both of Chicago (B. Blakeney Harris and Marvin W. Wallach, both of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Thoma, Linden & Hutchinson, of Wheaton (George W. Thoma, of Wheaton, of counsel), for defendants in error.

STONE, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, individually and as the administratrix of the estate of Wilbert D. Belding, deceased, filed in the circuit court of Du Page county her bill for an accounting, settlement, and division of partnership property under the provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act (Smith-Hurd Ann. St. c. 106 1/2, § 1 et seq., Cahill's Rev. St. 1933, c. 106a, par. 1 et seq.). An answer was filed and evidence was heard by a master in chancery. The court, on review of the master's report, entered a decree hereinafter referred to. Defendants in error appealed to the Appellate Court for the Second District. That court affirmed in part and in part reversed the decree and remanded the cause, with directions to enter a decree in accordance with its finding. The cause is here on writ of certiorari.

The death of Edgar E. Belding has been suggested on the record of this court and his representatives have been substituted.

It appears from the record that on or about February 25, 1918, Edgar E. Belding and his two sons, Wilbert D. and Harlow H., entered into a written partnership agreement to engage in the general contracting business. Under the terms of this agreement Edgar E., the father, was to receive sixty per cent. of the profits and Wilbert and Harlow each twenty per cent. On September 19, 1928, Wilbert died, leaving plaintiff in error and their children as his only heirs at law.

The partnership contract recited that Edgar E. Belding contributed $2,000 on cash and personal property of a like amount. It provided the method by which the books should be kept and the money paid out, provided that each member of the partnership should receive a per diem amounting to 65 cents per hour for ten hours, and that losses should be shared in the same proportion as net profits. The partnership was to be of indefinite duration. The business prospered, and at the time of the death of Wilbert the partnership had accumulated considerable property.

The bill charges that prior to the termination of the partnership by the death of Wilbert the partnership agreement was so modified that each partner shared equally in property and net profits of the business, and that the portion of the partnership agreement providing for the payment of interest to Edgar E. Belding on his capital investment was canceled and the other partners released from any obligation on account thereof, so that at the time of the death of Wilbert all the partners owned an equal interest in all of the property, real and personal, belonging to the partnership. It appears from the record that at the time of the death of Wilbert the partnership had eighteen contracts for construction work, which were completed after his death. The prayer of the bill was for an accounting, division and partition of the real estate and accounting of the profits which had been earned on the eighteen uncompleted contracts up to the date of Wilbert's death. The answer of the defendants in error denied that there was any modification of the partnership agreement.

The master in chancery who heard the testimony reported as his conclusion of fact that about a month after the death of Wilbert, Harlow stated to plaintiff in error that they had computed Wilbert's one-third interest in the business, and that it amounted to between $13,000 and $14,000, plus profits. He also found that Harlow furnished the data from which an inventory was drawn, showing a net value of the partnership assets of $41,080, in which all partners are shown to have an equal interest. The profits for the current year were estimated at about $9,000. This inventory was made for the purpose of filing, and was filed, in the probate court in the matter of the estate of Wilbert. It appears that a full and complete accounting between the partners was had up to and including the year 1926; that no accounting had been had for the year 1927 nor up to September 19, 1928, the date of the death of Wilbert, but from January 1, 1927, to the date of Wilbert's death, Edgar E. drew, aside from his per diem, $2,268.93, Wilbert $2,808.96, and Harlow $2,523.76. The master found that the evidence showed the partnership agreement to have been so modified that each partner had a one-third interest in the business. The chancellor confirmed this finding.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Hanna State & Savings Bank v. Matson, 2018
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 22, 1938
    ... ... 691. The burden was on appellant to prove payment. Hildebrand ... v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., supra; Selma Company v ... U.S. 139 U.S. 560; Belding v. Belding, (Ill.) ... 192 N.E. 917; 22 C. J. 81. The trial court held that the ... appellant is estopped to assert any title to or interest in ... ...
  • People v. Wrest
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 30, 1951
    ... ... Tepper v. Campo, 398 Ill. 496, 76 N.E.2d 490; Belding v. Belding, 358 Ill. 216, 192 N.E. 917. Although the stipulation stated that the money was the property of the defendants, the evidence shows it was ... ...
  • Carter Oil Co. v. McQuigg
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois
    • April 18, 1939
    ... ... Keeves, 362 Ill. 64, 199 N.E. 131; Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bass, 357 Ill. 72, 191 N. 27 F. Supp. 189 E. 284; Belding v. Belding, 358 Ill. 216, at page 220, 192 N.E. 917; Mammoth Oil Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 13, 48 S.Ct. 1, 72 L.Ed 137; Wahlgren v. Bausch & ... ...
  • Crane Erectors and Riggers, Inc. v. LaSalle Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 13, 1984
    ... ... , chiefly, if not entirely within the control of an adverse party, rests upon such party if he would deny the existence of claimed facts." (Belding v. Belding (1934), 358 Ill. 216, 220, 192 N.E. 917; Southwest Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Cosmopolitan National Bank (1959), 23 Ill.App.2d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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