Wheeler v. Arnold

• Decision Date: 13 October 1874
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Challenge S. Wheeler v. William F. Arnold. [1]

30 Mich. 304

Challenge S. Wheeler v. William F. Arnold. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 13, 1874

Submitted on Briefs July 23, 1874.

Error to St. Joseph Circuit.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted.

Edwards & Sherwood, for plaintiff in error.

H. H Riley, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Campbell, J.:

Plaintiff presented to the commissioners on the estate of his son, George R. Wheeler, a claim involving an ordinary personal liability, and a further claim for moneys advanced by him as his son's partner, beyond his share of the debts of the concern after its dissolution. The personal debt was allowed, and the claim for contribution disallowed. He appealed to the circuit court, where the same result was reached; and he now brings error upon exceptions to the rulings on the trial. The defendant in error did not present any argument in this court, and we shall, therefore, confine our attention to such questions as are absolutely necessary to dispose of the case.

It is apparent, from the verdict, that the case turned at the circuit chiefly on the supposed inability of the plaintiff to obtain a settlement of the partnership affairs in this way. The charges actually given are somewhat ambiguous, but when construed in the light of the refusals to charge, it is evident that this portion of the claim was not left before the jury in such a way that any recovery would have been possible. We cannot imagine any other explanation of the verdict.

All the transactions took place during the lifetime of both parties. At the death of George he was or was not indebted to his father for money paid to his use, according as the latter had or had not advanced more than his share of the partnership debts. Up to that time they had stood in law on the same footing with each other, and with the same relative rights and responsibilities. There was no occasion for an accounting in equity unless there had been such dealing with assets, as well as such private relations with the firm, as to make a settlement otherwise difficult; and there being only two partners concerned, and discovery being now obtainable as well at law as in equity, there would seem to be no very good reason why the remedy at law would not be entirely adequate. But, whether this would be difficult or not, it would be admissible to resort to it.

If, as claimed by the plaintiff, there were no assets, or none remaining after the debts were paid, then the liability would be a simple money liability, which could be settled without any legal obstacle in an ordinary action, and no other form of accounting would be required, or specially appropriate.

It is certain that under our statutes concerning the proof of claims against deceased parties, any purely pecuniary claim involving no complications between more than two contending interests, can be established before the commissioners without resort to equity. The language of the law is very plain. It includes "All claims and demands of all persons against the deceased, except in the following cases," those cases being, first, where there are no debts; and, second, where the estate does not exceed one hundred and fifty dollars, and it is assigned to the family: Comp....