Boeger & Buchanan v. Hagen
| Decision Date | 18 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | 38377 |
| Citation | 215 N.W. 597,204 Iowa 435 |
| Parties | BOEGER & BUCHANAN et al., Appellants, v. JOHN F. HAGEN et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Decatur District Court.--A. R. MAXWELL, Judge.
An action in equity, to compel the receiver of a defunct bank to allow certain offsets. The district court allowed part of the offsets claimed. From a refusal to allow others plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed.
O. M Slaymaker and R. E. Killmar, for appellants.
A. P Olsen and Hoffman & Hoffman, for appellees.
ALBERT J. EVANS, C. J., and DE GRAFF, MORLING, and WAGNER, JJ., concur.
The Farmers & Traders State Bank of Leon closed its doors in December, 1924, and a few days thereafter, a receiver was appointed. Plaintiff firm consisted of only two members, Myles Boeger and F. G. Buchanan. It had been engaged in business for several years before the time this bank closed. On November 10, 1924, the firm executed a note to this bank for $ 2,500. On November 17, 1924, Myles Boeger executed his personal note to the same bank for $ 300. These notes, when delivered to the Farmers & Traders State Bank, passed into the hands of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The record is not very clear whether they were rediscounts or put up as collateral security. This fact, however, is not very material in the consideration of the case, as the receiver of the Farmers & Traders State Bank made settlement with the Federal Reserve Bank, and at the time of the suit, these notes were in the hands of such receiver as assets of the Farmers & Traders State Bank.
At the time the receiver took over this bank, the firm of Boeger & Buchanan had a credit in their open deposit account of $ 1,025.55. At the same time, Myles Boeger personally had on deposit in his open account the sum of $ 1,333.05. The plaintiffs' claim, as filed in the district court, was that the sum of $ 1,025.55 then on deposit should be set off against the $ 2,500 note of the firm. On the trial, this was conceded by the receiver. It was further claimed that the Myles Boeger note of $ 300 should be offset by the amount due on that note from the personal account of Myles Boeger. This was also conceded by the receiver. This left about $ 1,000 in the personal account of Myles Boeger. The partnership claim is that there was an agreement that this balance in the account of Myles Boeger was partnership money, and should be allowed as an offset against the partnership note of $ 2,500. The balance of the partnership note, after deducting the $ 1,025.55 and also the balance left in the Myles Boeger account after taking out his individual note, was paid in cash.
Appellants correctly summarize the question left in the case as follows:
It may be well to consider at the outset some underlying principles of partnership that we deem controlling in the determination of this case. It goes without saying that the partnership assets are liable for the payment of the partnership debts. Are the assets of the individual partner equally liable for the payment of partnership debts; or are his individual assets only a secondary fund, in the nature of a surety or guaranty for the payment of such partnership debts, which fund...
To continue reading
Request your trial