National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-10-12
DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTNERS
One Claims an Interest the Right to
which is Denied by the other.

In the court In general term yesterday
the equity cause OF Halet Kllbourn against
James NJ. Latta was taken up for hearing,
Col. Enoch Totten and Mr.. William f.
Mattingly appearing for the complainant,
and Mr.. Walter ID. Davldge for the defend
ant. The bill alleges that In the year 1866
the complainant and defendant were CO.
partners In the business OF real estate
agents and brokers, and the purchase and
sale OF real estate In this District; and that
In January, 1871, John +. Olmstead was
admitted as a co.partner, IL was stipulated
by the partnership agreement that all
profits resulting from operations in real
estate should belong to the firm; and that
all information obtained by any member Of
the firm touching the purchase or sale OF
real estate should be communicated TO the
firm; and that no member of the firm should
engage In the business of buying and selling
real estate In this District on his own ac-
count or with any other person, excepting
In cases where the proposed action had
been explained to the firm and 1t had de.
clined to take any part therein. The
bill charges that In violation Of the
partnership agreement, Mr.. Latta and
John Steurns during the continuance OF the
partnership bought and sold real estate
without the knowledge OF Mr.. Kilbourn,
and from these purchases large profits ac-
crued, and that the interest OF Mr.. Latta
therein belonged to the firm. 1t is further
charged that about Oct. /, 1872, the firm IN
consideration Of services rendered Paulus
Thyson, and in accordance with q private
agreement between the parties, the firm was
entitled to receive from Thyson lots 81, 35,
and 80 in square No. Ar, and that Mr..
Latta fraudulently obtained from Thyson
the conveyance Of the lots 80 and 80 to w.
i. Bemis, the defendants son.in.law, aud
subsequently were conveyed to Mr.. Latta,
as also was lot "a.
Mr.. Latta In answering denies that any
partnership ever existed between either
Messrs. Kilbourn and Olmstead and him
self for the purpose OF carrying on the busl-
ness OF the purchase and sale Of real estate,
but alleges that the business OF the firm
was that of real estate and note brokers,
and emphatically denies the alleged stipu-
lation in the partnership agreement. lie
AYERS that the firm never had any capt.
tai, nor was there any provision
by which the firm could have capital for
the purchase and sale OF real estate. He
admits that the members of the firm, from
time to time, did make purchases aud sales
OF real estate, but AYERS that they were the
result OF special agreement. lie admits
operating in real estate with John Stearns,
and denies Mr.. Kilbourn's right to partei-
| pate in the profits. lie denies that the
services OF the firm entered into consldera-
tion In respect OF the couveyances made
by Thyson, and says that Mr.. Kilbourn
had notice OF the transfer within month
after being made. The issues presented for
adjudication are whether the purchases aud
sales of real estate by Latta and Stearns
were within the scope OF the partnership
business and stipulations and, II SO,
whether the complainant had notice OF
them. Second, whether the conveyances
by Thyson were In consideration OF the
services Of the firm, and fraudulently pro-
cured to be made by the defendant, as
alleged in the bill.