The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1878-12-14
THE PACIFIC
GOmmertlalAObe
SATURDAY. DECEMBER II.
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
In Equity.
Ill.,, c. J. Jrpp ~ McCrLLr, 81.
Il. J. AoxEw IS. B. F. DnLNGuAx.
Opinion By Judd, j.

This IS an appeal taken from a decree OF the
Chancellor confirming Z report OF q Master OF MS
Court, on q bill TO dissolve 3 Eub1paTtnershiP ana
an account. The Erst Of the two points raised oy
this appeal is whether the complainant should be
allowed interest from June lss, 1875, the date Hxed
By the Chancellor, or from August 18th, the date
OF the final decree.
The first bill bet = cen these parties was fled
March goth. 1873. the present respondent being
complainant, and oG April lst, g cross bill Vas
fled, upon which the decree was hnally made, after
numerous hearings The main object OF the lnEes-
tigatiOn was TO ascertain the value OF Ii. }. Ag-
news interest ia tue co-partnership property. 1t
consisting Of one quarter interest IN the STOCK al
an extensive hardware business IN this city, car
ried on under the firm name of Dillingham; q CS'
No inventory or account OF stock was taken by Inc
respondent on his fling his bill, and none was
taken since that time.
The Chancellor, on the 9th Of May, referred the
matter to a Master in Chancery to take an account,
and both parties made such a showing 10 the Mas
ter as they saw fit, whereupon the Master reported
on the 9th July, 1878, among other things that the
average profit of the business had been so per CENT
and found the amount due complainant to be So
76l.58.
Exceptions were taken to this report by both
parties. Two errors suggested by the complainant
were corrected by the Court, and the Court took
further testimony and bad fresh computations made
of the profits on the sales, and the percentage was
found to be 451 per cent; and on August 10Th,
1873, the Chancellor found the amount due COM
plainant to be S5,57418.
In ColIyer on Partnership, sec. 335, we end it
laid down that, in all cases in which it is thought
that justice would not be satisfied by the mere
payment to the party of the balances to which he
is entitled in the hands OF another, and that he
ought to have the advantage which has, or which,
at the least, might have been made of the money.
A Court of Equity, in decreeing an account, will
direct interest to be calculated accordingly.
In Stoughtor vs.. Lynch, 2 John, chap. 2O9, 1t
was held that - the period OF the dissolution OF the
partnership is the proper time to make a rest and
adjust the balance of the partnership account, and
the partner against whom the balance is found Is
cbargeable with interest"
But in Dexter VS.. Arnold, 3 Mason, 284, Mr..
Justice Story said that interest is not allowed upon
partnership accounts generally until after a bal
ance is struck on a settlement between the part
ners, unless the parties have otherwise agreed or
acted in their partnership concerns.
In the case before us, the respondent was the
managing partner, had the custody of the books
and continued the business Of the concern. 1t was
then his duty to produce proofs and data before
the Master with all promptitude to enable him to
report.
A quotation from the case of Honore vs.. Colmes-
nil, Z Dana, pol, is peculiarly apt here. If in
any case, the fact that at the time of the dissolution
of the partnership, the accounts are unllquidated
and the balance due to the creditor partner is IN
certain in amount, can excuse the debtor partner
from the payment of interest, 1t will not avail
where the debtor partner was the booa-keeper.
and was bound to know the state OF the partnership
accounts and the extent OF his own Indebtedness
The state of the law on the subject of interest in
partnership settlements seems to be that & there is
no general rule fixing the date of the dissolution
of a partnership, as the period from which interest
is to be computed against the partner who Is In
debted to his associate; but that the allowance OF
refusal Of interest in such cases, depends upon the
circumstances of each case" See Beachem VS.
Eckford, 2 Sanford, chap. lie.
The Chancellor thought that the time between
the goth March and the LIST June was amply sufi
cient to enable the respondent, if he had been dill
gent, to have produced the proofs and enabled the
Master to report the sum due the respondent, and
on the principle that the respondent was entitled
to the use of his money from the time when its
amount could reasonably have been ascertained
the Chancellor directed interest to be computed
from the lst of June.
In the light of the authorities above referred to
we think this was proper and just, and that the
circumstances of this case warranted it.
The second point raised by the appeal is that an
amount of cash purchases and sales vas made by
the firm in this town to fill local orders, on which
a profit not over 10 per cent. was made, and tina
allowance should be made on these sales.
But it was the duty of the respondent to show
reasonably to the Master during his Investigation
what the amount of these sales were. The mere
statement by the respondent that $1,000 of such
by data. is not sufficient as evidence to support an
amendment to the decree in this respect.
The decree, therefore, must stand.
J. NJ. Davidson, for Complainant.
A. S. Hartwell and Castle & Hatch, for Defen
dants.
Honolulu, December 4th, 1878.