Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-09-12

q. III ~ nv ths
sure been held IL bill filed against Jointly intsr.
other party answers and dsproves the plaintiffs case il WIN
be dismissed as TO both DEFENDANTS Hum 1ol05 But this
answer by defendant who distinct rights and joint
interest with the party who a to answer
fendant O. H. HOLSTER who answers party to the
contract against which relief sought La Boltreeux and
sold compainants but in shares H. H. HOLSTER, who
owned distinct share had interest Wo do not suppose
in companants future partners instead of La Botreaux
and H. Hollister enables him to make defense for them
Their be distinct from his, and may admit oil
separate relief Indeed if his conduct in reference to these
wSs % sm not BE- 20 no be IN s
ry inflicted upon them by La Boitreaux and o. H. HOLSTER
the wrong done not after being admitted this
partnership chose to carry it with H. H. HOLSTER, they
would Be held valid partners only creditors
partnership H. H. Hollister but do think
H. H. Holster disproved the compliments equity. We
HS 1oc Of his to undertake denial Of the fraud on the
part and o. H. HOLSTER His chief concern
psadngs and proof resist the conclusion that COM
panans should have relief of some sort The wrong to the
compliments putting the upos the allegations OF the
BILL consists in selling them shares in these iron works. at
the belief that they being let into successful
and prosperous partnership, comparatively free Of debt
have made large profit The partnership books and bal
exhibited them showing profit
ner as profit being the books the interest of
La BOiteaux and o. H. Hoster in the profit only
Boitreaux and o. H. HOLSTER from the outstand
ing debts previous firms of HOLSTER Co.. and Hol-
lister La Botreax Co. taking places to said debts
suppong the books and balance sheet to contain state
Them the truth be that the affairs of
the partnership had not been successful or prosperous
nearly quite nsOvent had made profit, and the
debts of these not truly represented in the balance
sheet and upon the books by many thousand dollars and the
charges that H. H. HOLSTER, o. H. HOLSTER, Horace Hollis
and La Boresux knowing the unsafe condition Of the
firm conspred sell their shares extravagant prices and
the business; that for this purpose about
first of that month, so show
with profits and each partner took balance sheet and
and valuable and that they had made great profits and
of debt The books and balance sheet shown
and exhibited to compliments they bought This was
done by La Boreaux and the HOLSTERS and the truth the
books balance believed by companans The ac-
ual profit placed to the credit of each partner fol-
lows:
a. H9lstsr Y
La Botresux. 27n IS
o. H. MONSTER so 81
balance and books instead of being correct
false Fictitious and grossly fraudulent, and did not show
the truth the outstanding debts by twenty or th
large one, claimed by HOLSTER and which he insists
upon having allowed dsregardng the balance sheet and
also taken for conferred as to Horace HOLSTER
In his answer, H. H. HOLSTER admits that he had
asement of the works. that he had clerksfrst, o. H. Hollis
ter second, johnson and surely La Boitreaux; then
thought the books truly kept but has since discovered
returns of which he not then cogzan denies that he
exhibited the books abstracts to the compliments knew
of its being done party the made
to the but admits he assented receive compliments
partners he then believed the entries the complete
and full The be put his fault to the
book-keepers he much surprised any when
these discovered admits that debts
of the old firms H. H. HOLSTER Co., and HOLSTER La
Botreaux Co.. not entered the books of firms
but they were not SO large aegedprobaby from
5000 in addition to the omission to the debts due himself
which he claims to have corrcted admits that he o. H. HOl
er and La Boitrerx made out the balance sheet made
the entries on the books Of the result and profits which they
they rememember turned out that many debts
were omitted, which made the books erroneous.
and that the books were not fixed
to sell shares by but data by which in the f-
the books by H. H. and O. II; HOLSTERS thought
them correct and thinks books and balance
sheet examined by the compliments they pur
chased shown to them by him. and from
panants the debts of the firm The conviction forced
purchased they induced to believe that the
firms of H. H. Holiscr Co.. and HOLSTER La Boitreaux
co., not only by the of La BOtreaux but
filed evidence but George Wilcox appears to under
proof appears that the sum of 200 50 of indebtedness
by these firms, created prior to the taking the balance
which companants became members years 1853 and
1854 and what amount of such debts subsequently
the firm on the first dav of lamar isSS 5 M
but if corrected the books should
have shown Indebtedness to him time SO65
1t is difficult to believe that such wide departure from the
ignorance and not of design on the
part of these defendants of whom and especially H. g.
Hoiste had been with the affairs of these firms
from their origin. However this may the settled
that whether party fact know it to be
false is wholly immateral been correctly
said to affirm what does not know believe unust-
able either IN law or morals And indeed seems now to
be well settled that if party nnocenty mrepresents
act is conclusive ground for relief equity as
wilfu and false assertion for operates surprise
al 10 Yer 20: Storys Ed section i9s MerriWetbsr 81
al vs. Iorman ct al sneed Davidson VS. Weekly
Yer. 1856 and H. H. HOLSTER -. As between him and
compainants greater interest in havin
instead of La Boitreaux and HOLSTER
not land think it likely he had) be allowed
other debts than those shown by the books of the
two old firms of H. H. Hoser Co, and HOLSTER, La
ItdOes that sOmDlainant have late
alleged in the bill that they utter Ignorance of ht
fraud perpetrated upon Them the injury hem until
of H. H. HOLSTER admits Jardon was never al
the works and Phillips only once twice. and then only fol
business They the merchants Cincinnati to sell the
iron &C. 1t is shown that the 18th November 1854
Ellis filed bill dissolution and settlement of tn,
partnership and in taking the account in that case
that both he and complanants had erauded
having also in his purchase agreed pay of
debts of the prior firms. They then filed their bill and E
his amended BILL ION the nth OF March, 1s5 praying for
RECESSION of the contract by between him and
H. H. HOLSTER, the contract was subsequently, rescnded
But we do not think this proper rescnd the
chases of comPlainants the parties put
In the case OF Ellis decree made to sell the partnership
property close the partnership at the Commissioner
sale under the decree the d January 1855 the COM
chased the furnace and other property value of
o. H. H. Holster the forge and some other property and
have respectively been the the proper
purchased the WILCOX hayin
quiTed interest of third in the
missioner sale by purchase from the
they have used and worked the under the
firm of Geo. p. Wilcox Co., and Wilcox party to this
suit In this state of facts do
the purchases of compliments The condition of the
of H. Il. HOLSTER Co., too, could not be by the in
ormaly OF the contracts between complainant and La Boz
and o. H. Hoter. We only hold that as between
compliments and defendants the books prior firms of
H. H. HOLSTER Co., and HOter, Botreaux & Co. as
they existed the time of compliments purchases on tho
23d of February 1885, shall be held ndbt
e1n baya vaid
cree against HOLSTERS and be lien on
any partnership property held by them any them
if other such debtsnot statdd the books remain
paid the conplainants will not be liable therefor
this principle the late partnership of H. H. HOLSTER Co.,
will be settled, holding compliments members thereof
make good their statements Indebtedness of
the prior firms.
As to hand when complanants purchased they
very capable of judging of its value and sup
pose they did, and if it insufficient the indebted
of these firms represented the books they
suppose them wanting in and prudence For
any deficiency in this respect then, complanants abide
the made by themselves. But the debts
the books of the firms they stand very different ground
Decree reversed.
WRIGHT, Judge.
the opinion OF his Honor Judge Wright, in this
cause prepared argument former of the
examination of the authorities and the record has
satisfied this of the correctness of the conclusions Of law
and fact which his Homer in the foregoing opinion,
which the opinion Of this court The decree OF
the Chancey will be reverda decree entered here in
execution the and further proceedings in the Chan