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

~
aos soy ssssslgne5ie cause Sc doing i sitbout ae-
Il wbere2 - - Passas1ahlP oooks OF eisc-
-, ;I And can We decree upon sI,ob .vs5enes, Va
| otFa --.I al arrangement without nOts or
| othef memorandum Of any kind ana ,,-;.s,ot o,
given therefor, both partner1 bsi - [so.i
and equally active in the nasnsvaTos, -Is - s---i
.ners1lp DHsinass, EO6ld BE- s1f,.-ss - - -
doubt cash was received by both of re sy;,.- -
but the proof does not enable M ~ ~ P5E Ells5s,
one kept and used mora than the OIL. = " -. es
tsse il priuIa faeis upcn the record tlIss ~
spect the enc has no sdvaEtaee over ~, - s
whatever excess the one may have ba5 49, -
the other was settled by an application ef the,r -
BY division between them! It would be natnrsi e.
the parties IN small store ike tins 70 male -.;5
setdemsnts OF their daily receipts aud sspeeaIlg "a
Ehen they were not entered Bpcn their nartos-S6iT
books, bot rasrslT preserved n the enaory & tEs
partners. TIE eoaelasi8n % which We have an.
rived IL decgiYely sustained by evidence Of J1d5o
TuFiey. HsA received iaf5roissisl o' ttei A..
soiUndn st FszEel and On h.S way koms went ,b5a
Ee2R-S station 70 learn tie PARTICULARS, a. hs
supposed theF, had fallen out, and beiug the
friend Of both, be thought 1t would be kfddnesAto
them 20 have sach an Adjustment Ee mentioned.
the SUBJECT to the defendant, and the efct Of his
reply was that they had dissolved the pa-tpership
~ consent and that there was no serious difficulty
eefWecn them; that he was to take the stock On
hAnd aad pay the debts--payizg the eomPlaiuant
he capital be had advanced yvbs.Fa-- TX, vhola ar,
y
the witnesses mind that they bad agreed on eveFy-
Ining except ne Tine he was TO have within which
70 pay the capital due complainant. Now it cannot
De eFedlted far m0ment that IL at thas ve.y tine
com bad 10 his hands the cash assets Of the
nrp1 exceeding the amount Of his capital and that
Known to defendant, as Il must have been if his
answer and the evidences OF bis zitnesses be ti7rs
tnat he snd complainant should be disputin4 no. a.
70 the rsa7ss Of capital for that defendant c09ceded. .
put as 70 the time within which il shoui1 be re-
turned And hew could il IN truth be ssisEtAerel
was no serious SlfieHlty between the uartnersl ff
lne 10 pqtation against complainant Of fraudulenty
was well founded. = - rs = - - z
Ine attempt toehsrge complainant with certain
goCds Of ne firm which the witness Witt thisks be
'ook and did not account for, Of the Ealue ia his
9plnlon OF SI00 dollars must equally fail because IL
mere were nothing else IN the case against the allow
Ince Of the claim, from the evidence Of The Misses
hltesides snd OtheP proof in this record We think
he msst reasonable cenelusion,is that eOuplaina1t
ss accounted for al the goods be toek sni receiv
d. 8. 81 ,s.t -.f g.. -,s ,-.l
lt follows also from what we have said, that in
smueh as complainant was To go ont Of the frm
nth bis capital and interest," no account as to that
art Of the partnership which related 70 the tavern
las BeeeesaTys Besides we are satisfied from the
leading and proof that upon taking the account the
eienlans WoGid have been entitled 70 a0thing-
Ihedeeree OF the Chancellor m1st be affirmed
Mn costs. bora . % q -rls t.7 HRICHT.
A true eopyi R. W. CAswEI1- Clerk - fst. .-