Bloomfield v. Buchanan

• Decision Date: 18 November 1886
• Citation: 14 Or. 181,12 P. 238
• Parties: BLOOMFIELD v. BUCHANAN and others.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

12 P. 238

14 Or. 181

BLOOMFIELD v. BUCHANAN and others.

Supreme Court of Oregon

November 18, 1886

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county.

Appeal of defendants from a decree on an accounting in a partnership suit.

Strong & Strong and Shattuck & McKee, for appellants.

C.E.S Wood and N.H. Bloomfield, for respondent.

STRAHAN J.

This is the second appeal in this cause. The opinion of this court on the former appeal is reported in 8 P. 912. It was there found that a partnership existed between plaintiff and defendants as alleged in the complaint, and that the plaintiff, then the appellant, was entitled to an accounting, and to one-fourth of all the profits arising upon the contracts described in the complaint; and the cause was remanded that an accounting might be had. For a fuller statement of the facts see the former opinion of this court. That accounting has been had upon which the court rendered a joint and several decree against the defendants, and in favor of the plaintiff, for his share of the profits arising from the business of said copartnership, from which decree the defendants have appealed.

No question is made in this court as to the correctness of the accounting, or as to the amount of profits received upon the contracts mentioned in the complaint. The only question presented for our consideration is as to the form of the decree; that is, whether the decree ought to be rendered against each defendant separately for one-fourth of the profits he received upon the contract in his name, or whether it ought, under the particular facts and circumstances developed in the evidence, to be against the defendants, jointly and severally, for one-fourth of all profits received upon the three contracts. In an ordinary accounting between partners, where neither is guilty of such acts, omissions, or concealments as involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, and which are injurious to another, or by which an undue or unconscientious advantage is taken of another, the rule of liability is as contended by appellant's counsel. In such case partners are liable to account to each other severally, but not jointly. Each of them is to account to every other for himself, and not for his copartner. Portsmouth v. Donaldson, 32 Pa.St. 202. But an examination of the evidence in this case has satisfied us that that rule could not properly be applied here. Whatever may be the general relations between partners, the facts developed in this case made it fiduciary, and the principles of law applicable to that relation must be applied. 2 Pom.Eq.Jur. §§ 963, 1050, 1052, 1079, 1081; 1 Colby, Partn. § 131; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70; Boire v. McGinn, 8 Or. 466; 2 Perry, Trusts, § 841; 1 Perry, Trusts, p. 501, § 166; Kerr, Frauds, 366; Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 218.

Soon after the formation of this partnership the plaintiff was excluded from all participation in the business, and from all knowledge of the books or accounts, and from all share in the profits. The business was conducted by his copartners without consulting him, or recognizing his interest in any manner whatever. They so...