Case ID: la_10/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bullard, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GIBBONS vs. WRIGHT ET AL.
    EASTERN DlST.
    
      June, 1836.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    The judgment of the court, adjusting the accounts between the parties, which only relates to facts, and is supported by evidence, will not be disturbed.
    This is an action by a partner, against the defendants Wright and Gould, as his co-partners, for the adjustment of their partnership accounts, in which the plaintiff claims a balance due to him from the firm, of seven hundred and fifty dollars and thirteen cents, for which he prays judgment; or for such sum as may be found due. .
    0fjheoourt'S tlie ae_ counts between the parties, to^actt and is supported by evidence, will not be disturbed,
    Judgment was confessed by Gould, one of the defendants, and the case proceeded against Wright, as on. a general denial. Gould was made a witness in behalf of the plaintiff, and his competency excepted to. The cause was submitted to the court, on the testimony adduced.
    The district judge, after .an examination of the commercial books and accounts, came to the conclusion, that there was the sum of three hundred and sixty dollars rightfully due to the plaintiff,' for which judgment was rendered. The defendant appealed.
    Maybin, for the plaintiff.
    
      Preston, contra.
    
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought to effect a final settlement' of a partnership concern, which existed for a short time between the plaintiff and the two defendants. One of the defendants confessed judgment, and was then used by the plaintiff as a witness against the other. We have not, upon reflection, thought it necessary to decide upon a bill of exceptions.in the record, touching his competency, inasmuch as the other evidence before us, particularly .the books of the firm, is sufficient to enable us to judge of the correctness of the judgment below.

The question as to the amount due to the plaintiff, was one gf fact. The court below came to the conclusion from an examination of the books, from which we have extracts before us, not contested, that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for about three hundred dollars. He was Ai,, , _ charged with any part of the brokerage upon the sale of slaves, and it appears that he withdrew money occasionally from the concern, for which he is charged. The evidence , , , ° before us does not enable us to say that the court erred in its conclusions on the matter of fact.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.