Pugh v. Newbern, (No.19.)
Decision Date | 23 February 1927 |
Docket Number | (No.19.) |
Citation | 136 S.E. 707 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | PUGH. v. NEWBERN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Camden County; Nunn, Judge.
Action by B. N. Pugh against J. R. New-bern. Plaintiff secured an order of arrest for defendant, and from an order denying motion to vacate the order of arrest and to discharge defendant and his sureties, defendant appeals. Reversed.
The plaintiff alleged: That he and the defendant, entered into a partnership agreement in January, 1926, for the purpose of contracting with farmers to raise Irish potatoes for said partnership during the year of 1926. That they were to pay the farmers raising potatoes a certain price and should furnish the potatoes, fertilizers, barrels, and barrel covers in equal amounts. That the potatoes should be shipped in the name of the defendant, who was to receive the proceeds from the sale thereof, and that out of the proceeds, after deducting the full amount of expenses for fertilizer, potatoes, barrels, and barrel covers, that the profit should be equally divided between the plaintiff and the defendant, and any loss should be borne equally. That according to the terms of the agreement the plaintiff was to furnish fertilizer and the defendant was to furnish potatoes at cost, and that each of said partners should pay one-half the other expenses. It was further alleged, on the part of plaintiff: That there were outstanding debts for potatoes and barrels and other expenses amounting to several thousand dollars, and that the defendant collected the proceeds from the sale of potatoes, amounting to $22,244.47, and has and that the defendant "has wrongfully and unlawfully and fraudulently taken the proceeds from the said potatoes and converted the same to his own use and used the same for his own purposes." The plaintiff further alleged:
The defendant answered, admitting the contract of partnership and that the potatoes were to be sold in the name of the defendant, and that the net profit, after the payment of all expenses and the usual commission for making sales, should be divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant, and, further, that certain moneys were expended by the parties under the supervision of the plaintiff, who "has failed and refused to render a statement or account thereof"; that "at the time of said dealings between said parties, the plaintiff was engaged in selling seed potatoes, barrels, and barrel covers as well as fertilizer, on his own account and for his individual profit, and was further engaged in buying Irish potatoes for and on account of this defendant; that, after said contract was made, the defendant not only furnished and delivered plaintiff barrels, covers, and seed potatoes, * * * but also a large number of barrels of seed potatoes and barrel covers in addition thereto, * * * and because of plaintiff's failure to render a statement or account of his dealings as aforesaid, the defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the number or value of the barrels of seed potatoes or barrel covers used to carry said contract into effect; * * * that during the period of dealings between himself and the plaintiff he has turned over to the plaintiff from time to time large sums of money for which, as aforesaid, plaintiff has failed to render to the defendant any statement or account."
The defendant further denied that he has failed or refused to pay over to the plaintiff any amount due him, and avers "that no portion is or can be due to the plaintiff until there has been a full accounting and settlement of the partnership affairs so as to ascertain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Casey v. Grantham
...therefor. The complaint clearly states a cause of action for an accounting of the partnership between the partners. Pugh v. Newbern, 193 N.C. 258, 136 S.E. 707, 58 A.L.R. 617. G.S. § 59-68(1) reads: 'When dissolution is caused in any way except in contravention of the partnership agreement,......
-
Century Universal Enterprises, Inc. v. Triana Development Corp.
...to pay over the claimant's share.' " (Emphasis in original.) 13 Ill.App.3d 699, 708-09, 300 N.E.2d 512, quoting Pugh v. Newbern (1927), 193 N.C. 258, 261, 136 S.E. 707. We reject plaintiff's attempt to fit into one of the other exceptions enumerated above. Specifically, plaintiff argues tha......
-
White v. Moore
...be done except to pay the amount due from the one to the other if the amount involves no complicated account. See Pugh v. Newbern, 193 N. C. 258, 136 S. E. 707, 58 A. L. R. 617. When a partnership has been dissolved and its affairs have been so adjusted that the amount of the indebtedness d......
-
Bennett v. Anson Bank & Trust Co., 541
...transactions of Bennett Brothers, there must be an accounting of partnership affairs and a balance struck. Pugh v. Newbern, 193 N.C. 258, 136 S.E. 707, 58 A.L.R. 617; Baird v. Baird, 21 N.C. 524, 539. Their first task, therefore, is to show that their right to an accounting has not been los......