Farris v. Caperton

• Decision Date: 31 December 1858
• Citation: 38 Tenn. 606
• Parties: CORNELIUS FARRIS v. JAMES G. CAPERTON et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

38 Tenn. 606

CORNELIUS FARRIS

v.JAMES G. CAPERTON et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December Term, 1858.

FROM FRANKLIN.

This cause was heard before Chancellor Ridley, who pronounced a decree in favor of the complainant. The defendants appealed.

Estill and Francis, for the complainant; A. S. Colyar, for the defendants.

Caruthers, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The complainant and John Fitzpatrick, defendant's intestate, were partners for several years in a saw and grist mill. In December, 1853, they made an agreement in the settlement of their affairs, which was reduced to writing. After this, in March, 1854, they made a reference to arbitrators of all matters in controversy between them, at the time, by whom an award and final settlement was made, which, it is said, was satisfactory, and the parties acquiesced in it. It seems that the difficulty which produced this suit arose out of the construction of the award and settlement, as to their extent and effect.

The settlement of 1853 is signed by the parties and attested by two witnesses, and is thus briefly stated by them: “We find, upon a full settlement, that Farris is indebted to said firm $2,802.81, and that Fitzpatrick is not indebted to said firm. Said Fitzpatrick takes the tract of land known as the ‘Peter tract,’ and another known as the ‘Riley tract,’ and said Farris is to have the “mill place,' upon paying Fitzpatrick $1,485.40.”

Each party took possession accordingly. The deeds for all these lands had been made to Fitzpatrick individually; but it is admitted on all hands that they were paid for out of the firm means, and consequently were partnership property.

It seems that the parties were not satisfied with their settlement of 1853, and, in March, 1854, submitted their accounts to four competent friends to review, and finally adjust them. This was done upon a laborious examination, and the result was, as stated in writing, that Farris, instead of being indebted to the firm $2,802, as supposed in their previous settlement, only owed it $12.62, which was then paid. Upon this award the parties say in writing on the same day: “We, the undersigned agree to the settlement of which the within is a condensed statement, as a final conclusion of our old partnership. March 5, 1854.”

It is proved that the matter of the division of the land was not brought before these referees, as that was not understood to be in question, having been previously divided by the parties, but only their accounts were in dispute. There can be no doubt but that such was the understanding of the parties, and that they were content with the division they had made, but only differed about their partnership dealings and accounts, which alone were submitted to the arbitrators.

Very soon after this, Fitzpatrick instituted his action of ejectment against...