Finley v. Lynn

• Decision Date: 01 February 1810
• Citation: 10 U.S. 238,3 L.Ed. 211,6 Cranch 238
• Parties: FINLEY v. LYNN
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

10 U.S. 238

6 Cranch 238

3 L.Ed. 211

FINLEY v. LYNN.

February Term, 1810

ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Columbia, in a suit in chancery, brought by Finely against Lynn.

The bill stated that on the 27th of February, 1804, the plaintiff and defendant entered into articles of copartnership, by which the stock to be furnished by the plaintiff was to consist of one half of the ship United States and 5,000 dollars; and by the defendant, his gold and silver manufactory, two lots in the city of Washington, all his stock of merchandise, and the rents of two houses. That a part of the merchandise agreed to be furnished consisted of plate, jewelry, &c. purchased by the defendant of Messrs. Lemuel Wells & Co. to the amount, as was then supposed, of 2,300 dollars; and, in consideration of its being brought into the joint stock, the plaintiff agreed to pay one half of the debt due to Wells & Co. therefor.

That the business of the concern was conducted in two separate stores, viz. a hardware storer incipally

under the management of the plaintiff; and a jewelry store under the management of the defendant, containing the stock of jewelry, &c. brought into the joint concern by the defendant, and that which was purchased of Wells & Co. The business of the copartnership was carried on until the 1st of March, 1805, when a dissolution took place. During that period goods were bought and carried into the jewelry store, and at the time of the dissolution 'the jewelry store was indebted to said concern' in the sum of 2,825 dollars and 27 cents, besides which the concern had paid Wells & Co. in part of their debt, the sum of 263 dollars and 56 cents. That the dissolution was upon the following terms, viz. that the defendant should withdraw all the property put into the joint stock by him; and should have the goods in the jewelry store, and all the debts due to that store, as a compensation and in lieu of the profits arising upon the whole business. And the plaintiff was to take on his account the goods in the hardware store, and the goods which were ordered for the spring; and was to indemnify the defendant from all claims or demands upon the concern, or which might arise from goods then ordered, and not at that time received; which articles of dissolution were under seal. That when the plaintiff signed the articles of dissolution he did not intend to commit himself to the payment of the debt due to Wells & Co. For although, by the articles of copartnership, he had agreed to pay half the debt, yet as the goods were given up to the defendant upon the dissolution, he considered himself absolved from that obligation. And the plaintiff contends that the defendant ought to have been satisfied when the plaintiff 'returned to him the whole jewelry store, with the accession of nearly 3,000 dollars worth of merchandise, and gave up to him the profits of the said store, which he believes to be equal to 2,500 dollars more.'

That upon the dissolution the plaintiff agreed to give the defendant security for his performance of the terms of the dissolution, and the defendant had a bond prepared, which was signed by the plaintiff and his sureties; that the plaintiff did not see the bond until he was called

on to sign it, and that he is satisfied he never read it, taking it for granted that it was a bond to compel him to perform what he was bound to perform by the terms of the dissolution; and that his sureties executed it under the same circumstances and impression. That the defendant did not claim payment of the debt due to Wells & Co. for a year after the bond was executed, although Wells & Co. before the dissolution had brought suit against the defendant therefor; that the defendant had rendered the plaintiff some accounts in which that debt was not mentioned. That the defendant afterwards brought suit upon the plaintiff's bond, and gave notice that he should claim the whole amount of the debt due to Wells & Co. That the plaintiff's counsel was of opinion that the bond was so worded as to bind the plaintiff to the payment of that debt, whereupon the plaintiff confessed a judgment at law, saving his right to relief in equity. That the bond was executed under a mistaken impression of its contents; and that the defendant will take out execution upon the judgment at law. The bill then prays an injunction to stay execution, until the matter in dispute can be heard and decided in equity, and the accounts between the plaintiff and defendant examined and settled, and for general relief.

The injunction was granted by one of the judges out of court.

In the articles of copartnership, after stating what stock the plaintiff should bring into the joint concern, the debt to Wells & Co. is mentioned in the following manner, viz. 'And on the part of Adam Lynn, his gold and silver manufactory, two lots in the city of Washington, all his stock of merchandise, (the said O. P. Finley and Adam Lynn, jointly and severally, by these presents, binding themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, to pay to Lemuel Wells & Co. of New-York, two thousand three hundred dollars, money due to them on account of said merchandise,) the rents of one house,' &c.

The account against the jewelry store was an account

opened in the books of the company, charging that store with goods purchased and put into it for sale on the joint account; and giving it credit by cash and by goods sold to sundry persons; showing a balance of goods remaining in that store of 2,825 dollars and 27 1-2 cents, over and above the goods which were in it at the commencement of the copartnership.

The articles of dissolution were truly recited in the bill.

The condition of the bond of indemnity was as follows: 'Whereas the said O. P. Finley and Adam Lynn, late joint merchants and copartners under the firm of Finley & Lynn, have by mutual consent dissolved the said copartnership on the first day of the present month, on which dissolution it was, among other things, agreed between the said Oliver P. Finley and the said Adam Lynn, that the said Oliver P. Finley should satisfy and pay all debts and contracts due from or entered into by the said copartnership, or either of the said copartners, for or on account of, or for the benefit of the said copartnership, including certain debts due from the said Adam Lynn, for goods by him ordered, which have been received by the said copartnership; and also all debts which may arise from merchandise hereafter shipped to the said concern in consequence of any orders heretofore made; now the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the said Oliver P. Finley shall well and truly satisfy and discharge all the debts and contracts herein before described, so as to indemnify and save harmless the said Adam Lynn from the payment of the same, and from any suit or prosecution in law or equity, for or on account of the said debts and contracts, then this obligation to be void.'

There was also raised in the books of the concern an account against 'merchandise,' the balance to the debit of which was 4,028 dollars and 89 cents. And a statement of hardware imported on the joint account before March, 1805, amounting to 7,653 dollars and 8

cents. And of debts of the concern paid by Finley amounting to about 6,000 dollars.

The defendant's answer admits the original articles of copartnership and of dissolution, and the bond as referred to in the bill. It denies that the plaintiff advanced the 5,000 dollars in cash; and avers that the profits of the ship United States never came to the use of the concern, but were retained by Rickets & Newton, to whom the plaintiff had transferred his half of that ship. It avers that by the articles of copartnership, each party was to bring into the joint stock 11,000 dollars. That the defendant brought in 2,429 dollars more than his proportion, which was the reason of making the debt to Wells & Co. a partnership debt; after which there was still an excess of capital, amounting to 129 dollars furnished by the defendant, for which he had credit upon the first opening of the partnership books.

The entry of stock on the 1st of March, 1804, was as follows:

£. s. d.

Cash in England,.. 1,500. 0. 0

One half ship U. States,. 1,800. 0 0

Real estate,...... 1,290. 0. 0

Manufactory,...... 1,200. 0. 0

Merchandise,...... 1,538. 14. 0. £. s. d.

---------- 7,328 14 0

Due from stock to L. Wells & Co. of N. Y. 690 0 0

To Adam Lynn,.......... ...38. 14 0

It avers that the debt to Wells & Co. was, from this period, always considered by both parties as a copartnership debt, and that it was by the advice of the plaintiff that the defendant suffered himself to be sued for...