Hume v. McNees

• Decision Date: 19 January 1889
• Citation: 10 S.W. 384
• Parties: HUME v. MCNEES.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

10 S.W. 384

HUME v. MCNEES.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 19, 1889

Appeal from chancery court, Harrison county; J. W. MENZIES Chancellor.

The two parties to this appeal were in the years 1873-74 engaged in a partnership business under the firm name of Hume & McNees buying and selling leaf tobacco. Hume was the treasurer and book-keeper for the firm, and he was also a member of the firm of Hume & Owen. This latter firm also bought and sold tobacco, its tobacco being handled in the market in the name of Hume & McNees, and the accounts of the two firms were kept in the same set of books by Hume. This was a suit by A. J McNees against his partner, N. L. Hume, for a settlement of the partnership affairs of Hume & McNees. The commissioner to whom the case was referred found that the books kept by Hume showed the total sum of money expended by Hume for tobacco for the two firms, but did not disclose how many pounds of tobacco had been purchased by either firm, or the cost per pound, or how much tobacco had been paid for by Hume &amp McNees, and how much by Hume & Owen. The number of pounds sold by Hume & Owen was ascertained, however. In order, therefore, to ascertain what sum of money Hume ought to be credited with, as expended in purchasing tobacco for Hume & McNees, the commissioner took the number of pounds sold by Hume & Owen as a basis. To this he added a certain per centum as the shrinkage that would occur between the time of purchase and of sale, and the total number of pounds thus approximated showed the quantity of tobacco purchased by Hume & Owen. Multiplying this total by the average price per pound paid, the commissioner determined how much money Hume & Owen had paid for tobacco. Subtracting this sum from the known amount paid by Hume for tobacco for the two firms, the commissioner fixed the sum that the Hume & McNees tobacco had cost. The selling price of the same tobacco was known, as likewise was the cost of shipping and handling, etc., and in this manner the profits of Hume & McNees were determined. By this settlement Hume was found to be indebted to McNees. The tobacco raised by McNees' tenants on his farm was eliminated from the partnership accounts. Of the judgment rendered Hume complains.

A. H. Ward and T. T. Forman, for appellant.

L. M. Martin, for appellee.

PRYOR J.

It is evident from the report of the commissioner and the facts of the record that Hume obtained credit for all the tobacco purchased, and the question of shrinkage has nothing to...