Stone v. Baldwin
| Decision Date | 18 April 1907 |
| Citation | 226 Ill. 338,80 N.E. 890 |
| Parties | STONE v. BALDWIN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Suit by Edward Stone against Erastus B. Baldwin and another. From a decree of the Appellate Court affirming a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Taylor & Martin, for appellant.
Oliver & Mecartney and Dolph, Buell & Abbey, for appellees.
The superior court of Cook county entered a decree dismissing, for want of equity, a bill filed by appellant against appellees. That decree has been affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District, and the record is brought to this court by appeal.
The following statement of facts is in great part that of the Appellate Court:
The amended bill upon which the cause was tried was one for an accounting between Edward Stone, the appellant, and Erastus B. Baldwin, one of the appellees, and seeking a lien, for such sum as might be found due, upon a lot improved by a dwelling house in Cook county. This lot was bought by Baldwin with individual funds, but improved by him with partnership funds, and the title taken in the name of his wife, Jane E. Baldwin, who died intestate, and her sole heirs, two daughters, Martha J. Barnes and Alice Peters, with their husbands, and Baldwin, were the defendants in the proceeding. The material averments of the bill, as finally amended, were, that before May 1, 1869, one A. M. Baldwin, the appellee Erastus B. Baldwin, and appellant, Stone, had been engaged in the commission and produce business at Chicago under the name of Baldwin, Stone & Co., and that on said date that firm dissolved and E. B. Baldwin and Stone formed the copartnership of Baldwin & Stone, continuing as equal partners; that E. B. Baldwin on May 1, 1869, contributed to the capital of the new firm his share of the available assets of the old firm, namely, $3,163.36, and Stone contributed his share of those assets, $9,039.15, and $250 besides, making $9,289.15; that with said capital the firm continued in business from May 1, 1869, to May 1, 1904, when it was dissolved by mutual consent, and that all things connected with the firm have been settled except as afterward in said bill stated; that, on account of the excess in capital contributed by Stone, and excess of drafts from the profits of said business by Baldwin, there was due at the dissolution of the partnership a large sum from Baldwin to Stone, but that there was no dispute between them except as to the allowance to Stone of interest on said excess capital, and that this difference was submitted to one Reeme and one Gray ‘to settle and determine from the proofs that should be presented as to such question of interest’; that appellant presented statements showing the respective contributions of capital and statements showing the respective amounts of money withdrawn; that the arbitrators called no meeting and took no proofs, but came together with Baldwin and Stone and asked complainant if it was true that in 1875 the firm of Baldwin & Stone had failed, and that the capital had been entirely lost; that complainant said it was not true that the capital had been lost, and that they then gave Stone 24 hours' notice to show by the books of said firm that said capital had not been lost; that the arbitrators returned in a day or two, when Stone informed them that the firm books for 1875 were not in his control, and that no such question of loss of capital had been submitted to the said arbitrators; that the arbitrators insisted that the capital had been lost by the failure of 1875, and that Stone had lost the claim against Baldwin for excess capital, together with interest thereon; that the arbitrators were deceived by the false representations of Baldwin and that Baldwin prevailed on the arbitrators to exceed their powers; that Baldwin, pretending to act upon the arbitration, after setting aside for Stone the amount of the balance or excess of the money drawn from the firm by Baldwin over that drawn by Stone, took half the remainder of the assets, without reference to appellant's claim on account of his excess contribution to the capital and of interest due thereon; that all the acts and doings of the arbitrators were absolutely void; that it was with money derived from inheritance that Baldwin bought the lot described in the original bill; that he took title in the name of his wife, and then, with money drawn from the Baldwin & Stone business, made improvements by erecting a dwelling house costing $4,000; that, because Baldwin was indebted to Stone on account of excess capital and interest, the putting the property in his wife's name was fraudulent and void, and that Stone is entitled to a first lien on the lot and improvement, and to a decree of foreclosure and sale to satisfy the lien.
To this amended bill Alice Peters and husband and Martha J. Barnes and husband answered, stating facts designed to show that Stone was not entitled to a lien on the lot in question, even if he was entitled to an accounting and decree against his late partner. Baldwin filed an answer, by which he denied that there was no dispute between the partners at the dissolution of the partnership except as to the allowance to Stone for interest on alleged capital, and averred that there were other differences and claims as to the settlement of the partnership matters, and particularly as to whether or not there should be any allowance to Stone for excess capital; that, not being able to agree, Stone and Baldwin stipulated to submit themselves to the arbitration of H. C. Gray and J. B. Reeme, or to an umpire to be chosen by said Gray and Reeme if they should disagree, concerning all of the differences and the entire question of the settlement of the partnership affairs and the division of the partnership assets; that the arbitrators acted, and in May, 1904, made their award; that Stone and Baldwin accepted said award and agreed to fulfill it; that Baldwin, at the request of Stone, took upon himself the collection and distribution of the assets of the partnership in accordance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gramling v. Food Machinery and Chemical Corp.
...Koepke v. E. Liethen Grain Co., 1931, 205 Wis. 75, 236 N.W. 544; Putterman v. Schmidt, 1932, 209 Wis. 442, 245 N.W. 78; Stone v. Baldwin, 1907, 226 Ill. 338, 80 N.E. 890; City of Eau Claire v. Eau Claire Water Co., 1909, 137 Wis. 517, 119 N.W. This principle is well summed up in 3 Amer.Jur.......
-
Karaskiewicz v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...v. Baldwin, 127 Ill.App. 563, 571. Plaintiff knew of the contents of the memorandum and made no attempt to meet it. Stone v. Baldwin, 226 Ill. 338, 344, 80 N.E. 890. While plaintiff was under no obligation to reply to the contents of the memorandum until leave to file was actually granted, ......
-
Board of Trustees of Community College Dist. No. 508, Cook County v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, AFT, AFL/CIO
...review of the merits of arbitration awards. (White Star Mining Co. v. Hultberg (1906), 220 Ill. 578, 77 N.E. 327; Stone v. Baldwin (1907), 226 Ill. 338, 80 N.E. 890.) That this general standard, applicable to both labor and nonlabor arbitration, has been even more narrowly circumscribed in ......
-
Higgins-Wall-Dyer Co. v. St. Louis
...Millinery Co. v. Ins. Co., 160 N.C. 139; Evans v. Edenfield, 7 Ga. App. 175; City of Eau Claire v. Eau Claire, 137 Wis. 517; Steve v. Baldwin, 226 Ill. 338; Bisnovich v. Assur. Co., 100 Conn. 240; Collings Car Co. v. Ins. Co., 86 N.J. Eq. 53. (2) The act of the majority of the arbitrators, ......