Leabo v. Renshaw

• Decision Date: 31 October 1875
• Citation: 61 Mo. 292
• Parties: I. S. LEABO, Defendant in Error, v. E. T. RENSHAW, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

61 Mo. 292

I. S. LEABO, Defendant in Error,

v.E. T. RENSHAW, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1875.

Error to Moniteau County Court of Common Pleas.

Owens & Woods, for Plaintiff in Error.

Moore & Williams, for Defendant in Error.

HOUGH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff as payee, sued the defendant as maker, upon two promissory notes, one of which bore date January 1st, 1863, the other April 10th, 1869, and both of which were payable one day after date. The defendant pleaded several counter claims, and in addition thereto set up in substance that the plaintiff and the defendant were and had been, from a period prior to the 1st of January, 1868, co-partners in buying, herding, feeding and selling hogs and cattle; that several settlements were had prior to the year 1868, and on said settlements defendant was found to be indebted to plaintiff, and gave the notes sued on, for such balances as were then found to be due, and that the note dated April 10th, 1869, was given in renewal of a note made long prior to that date, at one of the settlements aforesaid; that in October, 1868, the plaintiff and defendant as such co-partners, made a contract with one Wear to buy, feed and sell cattle, under which transactions involving a large amount of money were had; that on a settlement of the accounts of the co-partnership, the business of which was then ended, a balance would be found to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant greater than the amount of the notes sued on, of all which matters he stated on account and prayed for a dissolution and settlement, and for judgment for the balance found to be due.

The plaintiff admitted that there were joint transactions prior to 1868, but averred that they were separate and distinct from each other, and were fully settled, and had no connection whatever with the engagement entered into with Wear in October, in 1868, and denied that any continuous co-partnership existed between them, as was alleged by the defendant.

The testimony of the defendant himself fails to show any continuous partnership, but simply shows that he and the plaintiff traded together in stock three years in succession, and settled with each other at the close of the season in each year except the last.

The court took cognizance of the defendant's cross-petition, and proceeded to take an account of the co-partnership transactions, and rendered a decree for plaintiff, after deducting from the amounts due...