Macauley v. Elrod

• Decision Date: 15 December 1894
• Citation: 28 S.W. 782
• Parties: MACAULEY v. ELROD.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

28 S.W. 782

MACAULEY v. ELROD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 15, 1894

Appeal from chancery court, Louisville county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by John T. Macauley against E. L. Elrod for an accounting by defendant as plaintiff's agent. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals, and, from a judgment dismissing his counterclaim, defendant brings a cross appeal. Affirmed on both appeals.

F. F Trabue, for appellant.

John Speed and O'Neal, Phelps & Pryor, for appellee.

PRYOR J.

This action, originating at law, and finally transferred to a court of equity, involves the settlement of the accounts between the appellant and the appellee, and particularly the accounts of the appellee while agent and bookkeeper of appellant at his theater in the city of Louisville. The settlement runs through a period of several years; and it is insisted by the appellant that the appellee, by failing to make proper entries and omitting to make others, shows the use of appellant's money to a large amount, and for which he should be held to account. Many books of accounts, orders checks, etc., are found with the record, and a system of bookkeeping shown that renders it impossible to arrive at any accurate result, and in fact many checks in number given by appellant for his own purposes, that have been attempted to be charged to the appellee, having no connection with the business, or, if so, were not properly chargeable to him. The claim of $15,000 asserted against the appellee has been reduced by the admission of the appellant to less than one-third of the amount, and that not properly chargeable to him. The entire proceeds of the theater belonged to the appellant, and he used them, as he had the right to do, in such a manner as to prevent anything like system in the statement of the accounts. The case was referred to an experienced commissioner below, fully competent to state the accounts, and after a careful examination of the books and accounts, together with the proof offered by each party, he reported an indebtedness by the appellant to the appellee. The chancellor, who seems to have considered the case more than once, at first rendered a judgment for the appellee, and upon a reargument took back that judgment, and dismissed the original action by the appellee, and the set-off and counterclaim of the appellant, and in so doing, we think determined the equities of the...