Carroll v. Little
| Decision Date | 04 December 1888 |
| Citation | 40 N.W. 582,73 Wis. 52 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. LITTLE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Rock county; JOHN R. BENNETT, Judge.
Action by Phillip Carroll against Walter Little for a settlement of partnership accounts. Judgment for plaintiff. Both parties appeal.A. Hyatt Smith and Fethers, Jeffries & Smith, for plaintiff.
John Winans and Smith & Pierce, for defendant.
These are cross-appeals from the same judgment. The parties formed a partnership for the purpose of buying and selling live-stock, sheep, and swine, etc., the profits to be shared equally. The partnership commenced about October 10, 1876, and continued to February 24, 1879, when they ceased doing business, by mutual consent. The action is for a dissolution of the partnership, and for an accounting as to the partnership transactions. The cause was referred to a referee, to hear, try, and determine. On the hearing of the testimony, the referee allowed some items in the account of the respective parties, which the other side objected to and claims should not have been allowed; while he disallowed other items, which each claimed he should have been credited with. The referee, among other things, found that the parties agreed that their bank-account should be kept at the First National Bank of Janesville, in the name of the plaintiff, Carroll; that all funds of the firm should be deposited there, and that the plaintiff should draw all the checks, and keep the books of the partnership transactions; that the defendant, Little, should attend to the shipments and sales of cattle; that the plaintiff's bank-book with said bank was adopted as the bank-book of the firm, and that the firm deposits which were made in the said bank were entered upon this book; that no other firm books were kept except this bank-book, check-book, and auction-book. The referee also found that, in making sales of the property of the firm, the defendant did, contrary to the partnership agreement, appropriate to his own use large sums of money of the firm, part of which he deposited in his own name in the bank, without the knowledge of Carroll, and that this caused great confusion and conflict in the accounts, rendering it difficult to ascertain how much of said money was restored to the firm, and how much still remained in the possession of the defendant. These findings as to the manner in which the accounts of the firm were kept, and of the failure of the defendant to deposit in the bank all firm money which came into his hands from the sales of cattle, are conclusively established, and warranted by the evidence. The true state of the accounts could have been readily ascertained had the defendant reported all sales of firm property, and made deposits of firm money as he should have done. If he is not credited in the accounting with all items which should have been allowed him, or items have been disallowed which he should have had credit for, it is attributable mainly to his own fault in not observing the agreement. Under the circumstances, no claim should be allowed in his favor which is not established by satisfactory proof; and, where the findings of the referee and of the circuit court are against allowing any item in his favor, such findings will not be disturbed, unless it appears they were contrary to the clear weight of evidence. Plausible arguments or ingenious inferences cannot destroy them, nor can they be set aside on mere probabilities. The application of these general remarks will be apparent as we proceed in the examination of the case.
We will first consider the appeal of the defendant; and as to that appeal it is objected that he has taken no such exception to the findings of the referee and of the circuit court as will enable us to review the points he makes. He claims that he was erroneously charged with certain items in the accounting, and failed to receive credit for other items, so that he was brought in debt to the firm, when he should not have been, in a fair and just accounting. There are two schedules annexed to the report of the referee, each stating a great number of items of debit and credit, which the referee found each partner should be charged with. The defendant excepted to the report of the referee, and renewed his objections in the circuit court to so much of the report as reads as follows, (then quoting two or three pages of the report, including the schedules.) Of course such an exception furnished no information as to what items or charges in the schedules the defendant objects to, and amounts to nothing more than a general exception. As the counsel on the other side observes, the defendant might as well have excepted to everything the referee found, and to everything he did not find, as to except in this manner. How could counsel on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caveney v. Caveney
...case James “otherwise *** acted” in the partnership concerns by taking interest on the notes above referred to. In Carroll v. Little, 73 Wis. 52, 53, 40 N.W. 582, it is stated that the allowing of interest in stating partnership accounts depends upon the circumstances of the case. The unifo......
-
Carroll v. Fethers
...important litigation between Carroll, the plaintiff in this action, and one Little, and which came to this court, and is reported in 73 Wis. 52, 40 N. W. 582; that A. Hyatt Smith was the attorney of record for Carroll in that action; that the firm of the defendants were of counsel for Carro......
-
Kellogg v. Citizens' Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
...that a mere reference to it is sufficient to decide this case. McDonald v. Kelly's Estate, 70 Wis. 108, 35 N. W. 295;Carroll v. Little, 73 Wis. 52, 40 N. W. 582;Trumbull v. Hewitt (Com.) 31 Atl. 493;Dunnington v. Frick Co., 60 Ark. 250, 30 S. W. 212;Mankel v. Belscamper, 84 Wis. 218, 54 N. ......
-
Reinke v. Wright
...87 Wis. 661, 59 N. W. 132;Milling Co. v. Boynton, 87 Wis. 619, 59 N. W. 132;Warner v. Cuckow, 90 Wis. 291, 63 N. W. 238;Carroll v. Little, 73 Wis. 52, 40 N. W. 582. Testing the exception to the ninth finding of fact by the foregoing rule, it is found to be sufficient. While such finding may......