Slaughter v. Danner

• Decision Date: 14 January 1904
• Citation: 46 S.E. 289,102 Va. 270
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: SLAUGHTER . v. DANNER.

46 S.E. 289

102 Va. 270

SLAUGHTER .

v.DANNER.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan. 14, 1904.

PARTNERSHIP—DUTY OF KEEPING BOOKS-CHANCERY PRACTICE—ISSUE OUT OF CHANCERY.

1. One partner, in a suit to settle a partnership, having failed to show that the exclusive duty of keeping the books of the partnership rested upon the other partner, cannot recover where, because of their confused and imperfect condition, a commissioner is unable to make any settlement.

2. Whether or not an issue out of chancery is desirable rests always in the sound discretion of the court; it should not be directed in a settlement of partnership accounts where the evidence and accounts are all before the court.

¶ 2. See Jury, vol. 31, Cent. Dig. § 39.

Appeal from Law and Equity Court of City of Richmond.

Bill by J. L. Slaughter against F. W. Danner. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Isaac Diggs and Hugh A. White, for appellant.

M. M. Gilliam, for appellee.

HARRISON, J. This suit was brought by the appellant, J. L. Slaughter, for a settlement of the affairs of a partnership between himself and the appellee, F. W. Danner. This partnership was formed in April, 1891, for the purpose of conducting the business of merchants and manufacturers of lime, plaster, and cement, in the county of Augusta. The partnership lasted until January, 1894, when it was dissolved by mutual consent

The appellant claims that he put into the concern $3,040, and that he is entitled to recover that sum from his copartner. On the other hand, the appellee claims that therewere no assets of the concern with which to pay its debts, and that the firm was indebted to him in about twice the sum claimed by appellant, on account of debts for which he had become personally responsible.

There was no contract reduced to writing setting forth the terms of the partnership agreement, and the parties are utterly at variance in their oral statements of the terms agreed upon. The appellant alleges in his bill that appellee agreed to keep all the books pertaining to the business, and his chief contention is that this obligation imposed upon appellee the duty of showing the results of the partnership business and the rights of each partner with respect thereto, and that, having failed to keep proper books, he is liable to appellant for his in-put.

The appellee in his answer emphatically denies the allegation that he was to keep all of the books, and avers that the appellant was to keep, and did actually keep, at the place of their operations, a large and important part of the books of the firm. Certainly, with the exception of the larger part of the first year, the appellant, during the entire period of the partnership, lived in Augusta, at the place of the partnership operations, and the evidence shows that he there had the exclusive management of the business, and undertook to keep a large and important part of the books. The appellant is not, therefore, entitled to recover upon the ground that the exclusive duty of keeping the books rested upon the appellee.

The...