Fryer v. New York Brokerage Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1911 |
| Citation | 133 N.W. 110,152 Iowa 688 |
| Parties | A. N. FRYER, Appellee, v. NEW YORK BROKERAGE COMPANY and M. L. URDANGEN, Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cerro Gordo District Court.--HON. J. F. CLYDE, Judge.
SUIT in equity for an accounting of an alleged partnership and for the recovery of money had and received, and for the value of alleged services. The answer contained a general denial and a counterclaim for money loaned. There was a decree for the plaintiff for $ 1,247. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Blythe Markley, Rule & Smith, for appellants.
Cliggit Rule & Smith, for appellee.
The New York Brokerage Company is a mere name under which the defendant, M. L. Urdangen, does business. Urdangen will therefore be referred to herein as the sole defendant. The plaintiff alleged in his petition that on or about January 26, 1909, he delivered to the defendant $ 1,400, which was to be returned by the defendant upon thirty days' notice. He also alleged that he worked for the defendant for two and one-half months in his store at Mason City, at an agreed wage of $ 100 per month. He further alleged that, as a part of the same agreement with defendant, they mutually agreed to engage in partnership in the purchase and sale of stocks of goods and that shortly thereafter the defendant purchased a stock of goods at Malcolm, Iowa which he afterwards sold at a profit of $ 1,200. He prayed an accounting and that he be awarded $ 600 as his share of the profits. The defendant answered with a general denial and some admissions. He admitted the receipt of $ 1,400. He denied all other allegations of the petition. He alleged, also, that he returned to the plaintiff $ 100 of the amount in his hands, and that he returned also certain certificate of deposit of $ 300. By way of counterclaim he alleged that he had loaned to the plaintiff various sums as follows: June, 1906, $ 200; September, 1906, $ 300; June, 1908, $ 10; February, 1909, $ 6.50. He also alleged that the plaintiff had received certain goods from his store of the aggregate value of $ 60.50. By way of reply the plaintiff admitted the loan of $ 200, but averred its payment. He denied all other alleged loans. He admitted the receipt of a part only of the goods charged against him in the counterclaim, and averred the total value of the goods received to be $ 19.01.
The case presents to us questions of fact only. The principal testimony is that of the parties themselves. It is difficult to say which of the two is the most unworthy of credit. The plaintiff is the brother of the defendant's wife. He has had a varied experience in different lines of business. He has had a limited experience in merchandising. For the last three or four years, however, before he came to the defendant, he was engaged in the liquor business. While working for the defendant, he was engaged in negotiations for the purchase of an interest in a vaudeville theatre. As to some of the items in controversy, we will not take the space to discuss the evidence. The plaintiff's claim of partnership in the Malcolm stock is not proved. We find no merit in any of the items of the counterclaim, except the claim for goods received and the item for $ 10 for money loaned.
Turning to the petition, it is undisputed that the defendant did receive of the plaintiff $ 1,400 and that $ 300 thereof was later returned in the form of a certificate of deposit, such return being made during trial. It is also undisputed that the plaintiff received from the defendant $ 100 in April, 1909. The plaintiff claims, however, that such sum was paid upon his wages, whereas defendant claims that it was a partial return of the money in his hands.
The difficult question in the case is to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the item for wages claimed by him. The evidence of the parties is...
To continue reading
Request your trial