Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-09-04

Rasos Ier Ezs crSss ssarl ai ~ q ss
i ksa4F usuos AND AlRIcEs o. PEI dnnan In odoaac.
NJ Subscribers dssEris9tbsr ps,.rs .,,l.d ,,. ..,,,
ssPost ocs sO6s Is vel oas s which tt1 SsY ts
ehanEs 20 Be made. G i-t s-rr "a n b iIs viz 4
PEcIsroNs OF. sr1EE 81 pisEmE C6rRr
,.s"' s'.l@. E,''ia 0tyTc1AL. sss,age .'.g
Decisions Os the supreme Cp,,rt a. ,n,s
state Of Teanessees at KnGxTtIle, Sep-
tenspez Terns IseO,
o., sa.Is, j. Alexander Is' Ehlsasse. - ~.
This is bill to settle partnership in the mer-
eaatle and tavern keeping business at Bean Station
" GralngsrT county formed on the 4sh Of March
1926, between tbs complainant and -defendent, who
arc hrotherein7laW. This partDership was laanch-
ed on gpen The .I2th Of April when ibe Goods ar
rived, and dissolved on the 18th of Nay having in
isct ,s oesn n operation but 2ne month"; The parties
dlnered and dissolved in Consequences Of the differ
encs. By the articles Of pArsnership, both, the
parties we're to devote their time and attention to
the business, and It appears from the record that
both dad So The complainant IN his bill AYERS be-
put in, of capital about the sun Of Sl35G q TIE.
answer, in effect, adats Sl250.2j, but believes the
claim as 10 the remaining 500 erroneous; AYERS.
the former debts have all been paid by him. as We
take it out of the firm effects refuses 70 admit or
deny exhibit c. in the bill. the same being stata-
nothing a. TO this matter; ayeTs.t that be was in
formed BY clerk that complainant was receiving
money and using goods without charging himself
upon the books of the firm and hence dissolved:
believes he received and withheld of the cash Of,
the hTm between the 2lst of April and the 18th Of
May from six to seven hundred dollars, and ahoat
the same sum between the 18th and 2lst of April;
AYERS the partnership was dissolved on the I2th of
May, by his purchasing out eomplainaDts interest
-heit0 have the firm assets Ands pay the debts
paying complainant what, on settlement might be
proved due TO him (as We take il from the bill and
answer) for the e&pit4l he has advanced defendant
having advanced noDe) one half in Nay succeeding,
and the other halfin January folio Ei1g wish inter
est. The reason alleged on the part of defendant
IN his answer far the delay on the payment OF the
capital WIS to geta settlement with the COMPLAIN
ant as TO the money and gOeds 50 misappled 1hich
being dEe, he believed helsh0uld owe complainant
that on the, contrary, Complainant
would be indebted to him. 1t is to be inferred from
the allegations of the BILL and is satisfactorily es
tabllshed in the prOof-thst complainant was to 90
put Of the firm with bis pital and interest defend
ant taking the assets and paying the debts and the
parties disagreed only to the time when II capi-
al should be refused II i distinctly stated in the
answer, that defendsnt bought the share Of com
plainant in the store and that they closed the bus
ness of the tavern as firm. This on the 18th
If May, 1885, The tavern and lot were the prop |
,rty Of defendant and were only leased to the firm
The decree of reference (which was BY consent)
vas evidently with view 70 settle the partnership
lpon the basis Of the agreement of dissolution as
.bove stated and not to have general account. !
The points Of reference were: 1st the amount sd-
-anced to the partnership By complainant; "a the l
mount paid by defendant to or otherwise received
" complainant, since the formation of the partner
hip. and the advancement Of the money by~him;
d, the amount due complainant from defendant.
With interest; 4th any other matter necessary in |
be judgment of the Clerk and Master to settle the
lights of the parties.
The Master reports the capital advanced By the
omplainaDt to be 81 250 25; the cash and goods re-
eved by him. and not accounted for to be SfI,39 So
Which with interest as was reported, the sum due
Omplsinant. As to the tavern the master made no
epOrt, the decree, though authori ing not specially
equiring It. and the proof furnished las he said)
eiDg insufficient And it does not appear az the |
me either party designed any report. 's
The complainant exctpts to tine report because:
st. his capital was not fixed at 81 $50 % and 2nd
ecause he was charged with the 81 1872 80; and |
defendant (among other exceptions )because this
st sum was too small be S5T05O, aud for want of
report as to that part Of the partnership relating
the tavern,
The Chancellor sustained the second, but over
lied the first Of com pafnant's exceptions as be
"a also the two exceptions of the defendant above
,med, and after allowing defendant ere dit for GER
in small sums upon the principal of his o.her ex
'ptIons, gave decree against him in favor Of com
ainant for Sl-325,OO and costs, From This decree
e defendant alone appeals. We must not 90 into
e examination as to the exception Of complainant
,oa the amount Of capital advanced as he does not
peal. Il is sufficient 70 say, that as it regards
is matter We are satisfied the chancellor gsTe the
oper decree 4
The chief and almost the only struggle is SIS to the
m aledged to have been Withdrawn by the com | J
4inant from the firm, and not accounted for. We q
we no statement from the complainant as to this !
anime him. The clerks and masters failed TO do 4
and he could not yulunteer as wit ess for him i
If. The main reliance to charge him Is the evi- 4
nee Of Wit, who was clerk in the store from
2lst Of April, to the 18th Of Nay, when the dis r
luton took place. He stated it bis belief that
e cash sales during the period Of his clerkship '
the firm i. e. from the 2lst Of April TO the 18th a
Nay, amounted to or 200 dollars, though no
sh book, or drawer, or memorandum Of this
Mount was kept, the money being taken IN, some
nes by the one and sometimes BY the other part
r and sometimes by himself, and simply kept in 2
cir pockets. 1t was not counted, and he truly | q
Ough stated bis opinion Of the amount to be mere
ess- work. He Is also Of opinion that the cash | :
d credit sales before he went there, i e. from the
th to the 21st ofApril, must have been S4OO co.
forms this opinion from comparison of the IN
ice Of the goods purchased as seen by him, with !
; stock on hand when he went there. He does 8
Of course know who received the cash derived
I'm this latter sum but as to the cash received
lille he was clerk including that taken il from day
day by defendant and himself, be undertakes to | u
none of it retained either by himself or de-
ddnt, but that all Of it was paid to complainant C
easOn.i given or offered to be given for this
position Of the money. .. ..-.....5.-. ...-.., q
i. G. Thomas proved that one Thurman had a g
1tract on the rahroad near Beans Staten Of 81
lich he (Thomas) was Superintendent, during the n
nths of April and May, 1856, with so or co Irish r.
nds who traded partly with ID. Whitsides &CO., and
lght great many goods from the 12thOf April to |
18th Nay, that allOf them had money, and he Offea
v them purchase goods and pay cash for them 1
! he thinks, from his knowledge Of the goodst they
released, that each of them must have paid D. !
litesides d Co. Sl0 90; but this opinion is mere D..
lecture This Irish trade was q new source of | y
ONE in that part Of the State.
1 j. Cody proved that be lived at Beams Station bi
April and May 1856, and was much about the es
re of D Whisesides & Co, done some work in the e
re from the 18th 70 the 10th of April, and be in
nks there were more sales by said firm, for cash "
N the 18th to the 10th Of April, than from that m
e to the 18th of May; that during the first week N
y sold, he saw defendant receive money NUM-
Of times and each time he handed it over TO com
inaDt --tttfl
Witt further gave il as his belief that the cash o
ss from the Plat Of April. TO the 18th of May. 81
re double the credit sales for the same time, and
ich Che firm books show to be $3.50 3S, while the g
dit sales frsm the 18th to the 2lst Of April were c
$685.. --.s- sis.s.s.-i t.s.e $50. -. s. ~ y
irsfe IS further proof in this record tending ;
)pely to show that these witnesses are mistaken
incorrect as to the amount Of cash received By
firm during its existence. But to allow their
.mony its full force, even were we saSsfed, as !
are not had received and had not accounted for zz
cash sales Of this firm, yet vague and uncer- si
is the evidence as to the Gn0u that, it WOuld h'
1Ii jult for to base any satisfactory decree Ie
N it. Such state of accounts present = great en-
rvili