Case ID: vt_71/html/0261-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Taft, C.J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur Stevens et al. vs. Louis Coburn.
    January Term, 1899.
    Present: Taft, C. J., Rowell, Tyler, Munson, Start, Thompson and .Watson, JJ.
    Opinion filed March 4, 1899.
    
      Jurisdiction — Action of Account. — An action of account at common law cannot be maintained to settle partnership matters between three or more partners having separate and distinct interests.
    
      V. S. 1451, 1452. — V. S. 1451, 1452, conferring jurisdiction in such cases upon the county court do not extend that jurisdiction to justice courts nor to the city court of Montpelier.
    
      Declaration Construed. — The declaration is construed as meaning that the nineteen plaintiffs and one defendant held each a one-twentieth interest, rather than that the plaintiffs represent one moiety and the defendant another. If the latter be the fact the declaration is subject to amendment and the action may, perhaps, lie.
    Action of Account. Heard upon motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and demurrer to the declaration; at the September term, 1898, Washington county, Start, J., presiding. Pro-forma judgment denying the motion and overruling the demurrer. The defendant excepted.
    The declaration alleged among other things that the plaintiffs and the defendant “were associated together as partners and tenants in common in an organization known as the Young Peoples Independent Club of North Montpelier, Vermont, in which the plaintiffs, and the defendant were mutually interested;” and further that the defendant “agreed to render to the plaintiffs a just and true account of all moneys so received by the defendant for the mutual benefit of the plaintiffs and the defendant, and to pay the same to the plaintiffs upon request.”
    
      John J. Wing for the plaintiff,
    contended that the declaration should be construed as alleging that the plaintiffs represented one interest and the defendant an other, so that there were really but two parties.
    
      T. G. and E. H. Deavitt for the defendant.
   Taft, C.J.

This is an action of account in favor of nineteen partners against a co-partner, brought in the city court of Montpelier, and the sole question is, had the city court jurisdiction ? It has “jurisdiction of all matters of a civil nature” if “the debt or other matter in demand does not exceed five hundred dollars.” Acts 1896, No. 149, § 5. Actions of account are of a civil nature. An action of account at common law cannot be maintained to settle partnership matters between three or more partners having separate and distinct interests, for the reason that no separate judgments can be rendered in such an action. The remedy is in equity. The county court has such jurisdiction given it by V. S. 1451, 1452. These sections do not extend such jurisdiction to justice courts, LaPoint v. Scott, 36 Vt. 633, nor to the city court in Montpelier. That that court has no jurisdiction between three or more partners having diverse interests, is fully sustained by Wiswell v. Wilkins, 4 Vt. 137, and La Point v. Scott, supra.

If the nineteen plaintiffs represent one interest and the defendant another, in moieties, it is likely the action may lie. But we do not give the declaration that construction, but consider that each of the nineteen plaintiffs and the defendant are equal in interest each with the other. The declaration can be amended in the respect named if the plaintiffs are so advised. Therefore the case may be remanded.

Jtidgment reversed, demurrer sustained, declaration adjudged insufficient and cause remanded.