Corning v. Grohe

• Decision Date: 09 December 1884
• Citation: 21 N.W. 662,65 Iowa 328
• Parties: CORNING v. GROHE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

65 Iowa 328

21 N.W. 662

CORNING

v.GROHE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 9, 1884.

Appeal from Clinton circuit court.

This is an action in equity to reform a contract of settlement of the affairs of a partnership, and to recover an amount of money which plaintiff alleges is due him under said contract. The circuit court refused to reform the contract, but rendered judgment for plaintiff for a portion of the amount claimed. Both parties appeal.A. R. Cotton, A. F. Wheeler, and N. Corning, for plaintiff.

Ellis & McCoy and W. C. Grohe, for defendant.

REED, J.

It is shown by the pleadings and evidence in the case that the parties entered into partnership in the practice of law in 1872, and that this partnership was continued until February 1, 1878, when it was dissolved by the mutual consent of the partners. At the time of dissolution a notice was prepared for publication which recited the fact of the dissolution; also that the notes and accounts belonging to the firm remained in plaintiff's hands for settlement and collection. This notice was signed by each of the parties, and they at the same time signed the following stipulation, which was written on a paper containing a copy of said notice, and immediately below said copy: “It is further agreed by said parties that if said sum of $1,182 can be made and collected from said accounts and notes by reasonable diligence, same is to be so applied in payment of the said sum, and the balance of said accounts and notes to remain the property of Corning and Grohe; the said Grohe to be liable for any balance of said sum remaining unpaid; the said sum being due said N. Corning upon settlement this day made.” The original of this stipulation was retained by defendant, and plaintiff retained a paper marked “Copy,” which contains a copy of the notice of dissolution, also of the stipulation; but at the time it was introduced in evidence it contained a provision, which was interlined that the amount which was due plaintiff should bear 10 per cent. interest.

Plaintiff's claim is that defendant's interest in the notes and accounts of the firm was one-third thereof, and that the real agreement between the parties was that this proportion of the amount which should be collected on said notes and accounts should be applied in satisfaction of said indebtedness, and that if the contract provides for the application of a greater proportion of such collections than that to the satisfaction of said debt it was so written by mistake; and he alleges that he has collected all of said notes and accounts which are collectible, and that, after applying one-third of the amount so collected on the indebtedness and interest thereon, there remains due him the sum of $1,377.52; and he prays that the writing may be so reformed as to express the real contract between the parties, and that he have judgment for the amount of said balance. Defendant denied that there was any mistake in the writing, or that it fails to express the contract of the parties. He also denies that the provision for interest, which is interlined in the copy of the contract held by plaintiff, is any part of the agreement. The circuit court ruled that a reformation of the writing was unnecessary, and that upon the agreement as written but one-third of the amount collected on the notes and...