Hoff v. Hackett
| Citation | 134 N.W. 132,148 Wis. 32 |
| Parties | HOFF v. HACKETT ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 09 January 1912 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; F. C. Eschweiler, Judge.
Submission of controversy between Stephen H. Hoff and James H. Hackett and others. From a finding and judgment for Hackett and others, Hoff appeals. Affirmed.Frank M. Hoyt, for appellant.
Lawrence A. Olwell, for respondents.
The appellant is the surviving partner of the firm of Hackett & Hoff, which consisted of himself and Edward P. Hackett, now deceased, and the defendants are the executors of the latter. The case was decided in the circuit court upon an agreed statement of facts submitted pursuant to section 2788, Stats. 1898.
The controversy is whether a surviving partner, representing the firm, or representing himself in the winding up and adjustment of the partnership affairs, should be allowed to compute interest against the representatives of the deceased partner upon an account which stood on the firm books against the deceased partner and a third person.
The partnership began August 1, 1890, and continued until the death of Edward P. Hackett on May 9, 1910. The account in question began on the partnership books in October, 1890, and continued, somewhat reduced by credits at times, but on the whole increasing, up to the death of Edward P. Hackett, when the debit balance, exclusive of interest, amounted to $6,765.49. The fact that Edward P. Hackett and the appellant had each a separate and individual account on the books of the firm, on which no interest was charged, and that the account in question represented moneys advanced by the firm to “E. P. and J. H. Hackett,” as the account in question was entitled, would have some tendency to show that the intention of the partners was to charge interest on this last-mentioned account; the appellant having no similar account. But, on the other hand, the books of the firm were balanced every six months during this period of about 20 years, and interest computed upon and added to the debit balance of all accounts of third persons owing the firm any substantial amount for advances, while during this period there was no interest either computed upon or charged up to this account, except on one occasion, when an attempt of somewhat ambiguous character was made. The account in question, in 1905, showed a debit to the firm of about $5,000, and at the instance of appellant the bookkeeper computed the interest upon it, entered the amount in the journal, and without the knowledge of appellant carried this entry into the ledger as an item of said account. Appellant, observing this, had the charge eliminated, and, dividing the amount of interest by two, caused to be made a charge of one half of it against a separate account of J. H. Hackett, and sent the latter a statement and request for payment. The other half of the interest was not charged to any one, and there was no charge of interest left in the account in question. E. P. Hackett had no knowledge of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.
...was bona fide, and clearly that was a question for the jury which was resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Hoff v. Hackett, 148 Wis. 32, at page 34, 134 N. W. 132;Northwestern I. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 154 Wis. 97, at page 104, 142 N. W. 271, L. R. A. 1916A, 366, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 877.......
-
Christian v. City of New London
...of the court. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Madson, 202 Wis. 271, 232 N.W. 525;Ellis v. Frawley, 165 Wis. 381, 161 N.W. 364;Hoff v. Hackett, 148 Wis. 32, 134 N. W. 132; and Parke, Austin & Lipscomb v. Sexauer, 204 Wis. 415, 235 N.W. 785. The answers by the jury to the questions submitted to the......
-
Nw. Iron Co. v. Indus. Comm'n of Wis.
...was an important factor in determining whether the parties were living together. This is ordinarily a question of fact. Hoff v. Hackett, 148 Wis. 32, 134 N. W. 132. We think the inference drawn by the Commission that Jela Nevadjic and her husband were living together at the time of his deat......
-
Parke, Austin & Lipscomb, Inc. v. Sexauer
...152 Wis. 116, 139 N. W. 734;Wolfe v. Furman, 142 Wis. 94, 124 N. W. 1039;Ellis v. Frawley, 165 Wis. 381, 161 N. W. 364;Hoff v. Hackett, 148 Wis. 32, 134 N. W. 132. It is suggested by the respondent that, since there is no bill of exceptions, and since there are no exhibits attached to the p......