Knox v. Pearson

• Citation: 64 Kan. 711,68 P. 613
• Decision Date: 05 April 1902
• Docket Number: 12,118
• Parties: S. M. KNOX v. L. B. PEARSON, as Administrator, Etc
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

68 P. 613

64 Kan. 711

S. M. KNOX v. L. B. PEARSON, as Administrator, Etc

No. 12,118

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 5, 1902

Decided January, 1902.

Error from Allen district court; L. STILLWELL, judge.

STATEMENT.

THIS was an action brought by defendant in error as administrator of the estate of Noah Pettit, deceased, against S. M. Knox for an accounting. Knox and Pettit were partners in the farming and stock-raising business. Knox furnished 480 acres of land, and Pettit contracted with him to cultivate it furnishing one-half of the stock and farming implements, for the term of five years, and the parties were to share equally the profits and losses of the business. The agreement was made in writing November 10, 1890. In February, 1896, the contract was extended for a further term of five years. The petition alleges:

"Noah Pettit died at his residence in Allen county, Kansas, on or about the 8th day of February, 1898; that up to that time there had been raised, fed, fattened and sold crops, cattle and hogs to the amount of about $ 20,000, as near as can be ascertained, in said business; that of said $ 20,000 so sold and disposed of the defendants received the sum of $ 14,000 and said Noah Pettit $ 6000, as near as can be ascertained that there is now on hands of the said company's property, stock and farming implements and feed to the value of about $ 7500, as near as can be ascertained; that during the lifetime of said Noah Pettit he kept and performed all the covenants and agreements in relation to said business as by the said contract he had agreed; and that in addition thereto did work for the defendants in a large amount at breaking prairie, building fences, and other work done and performed by him in the improvement of farm at the request and for the defendants to the value of $ 500; that during the lifetime of said Noah Pettit he was unable to make any settlement with the defendants; that this plaintiff is unable to make any settlement with defendants."

The second count of the answer of the defendant below avers that on the 21st day of February, 1896, Knox and Pettit made settlement of their partnership business, when it was mutually ascertained and determined that the former had advanced for and on account of said partnership business the sum of $ 8588.76 over and above the amount of money and property advanced by Pettit, and under said agreement the latter was indebted to Knox in the sum of $ 4294.38, together with $ 343.55 interest, on account of money and property advanced for use in the partnership business; that it was mutually agreed that the partnership business should continue for the further period of five years from February 25, 1896 under the terms and stipulations of the original agreement. The answer further avers:

"That afterward, on the 8th day of February, 1897, the said S. M. Knox and the said Noah Pettit made a settlement of their mutual accounts growing out of said partnership business, and it was mutually determined and agreed between the said parties thereto that the said Noah Pettit was indebted to the said S. M. Knox on account of property and money advanced for said partnership business the sum of $ 4218.13, and afterwards, on the 21st day of December, 1897, and supplemented by a further settlement, January 21, 1898, the said S. M. Knox and the said Noah Pettit made settlement of their partnership transactions and dealings, when it was ascertained and mutually agreed that the said Noah Pettit was indebted to the said S. M. Knox, on account of said partnership, $ 4250.96, which amount is and was in excess of the interest of the said Noah Pettit or of the said plaintiff in said partnership property."

There is attached to the answer an agreement of settlement in writing, dated February 21, 1896, signed by both parties, in which the indebtedness from Pettit to Knox is stated as alleged above. In reply to this answer the plaintiff below interposed first a general denial, and for a second defense alleged as follows:

"For the further reply to the second paragraph of defendant's answer, plaintiff denies that there was ever a true, just or equitable accounting or settlement made between the plaintiff herein and the defendant, or between the deceased Noah Pettit and this defendant, but alleges that the purported settlement, a copy of which is set out in defendant's answer, is not a true, just or correct statement of the accounts between the parties thereto; that said Noah Pettit was induced to and did sign said purported settlement through a mistake and misapprehension of the facts as to the true condition of the accounts; that said Noah Pettit was deceived and misled as to the truth and correctness of said accounts that the entries made in the book of accounts from which said purported settlement was taken, were made under and by direction of the defendant Knox; that the deceased Noah Pettit relied on the statement of defendant Knox that the same was true and correct, when in fact said book of original entries fails to show the true condition of said...