Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-05-03
JUDGE WALES IS SUSTAINED
His Opinion Upheld by the
Court of Appeals.
Mr.. RICHARDSON AGAIN LOSES
In His Case Against E. T.
Walton and F. N. Buck.


The court of appeals, in Philadcl-
phia, on Friday, sustained the decision
of Judge Wales in the case of Richard
son VS.. Walton and Buck, in which
Senator Anthony Higgins and Senator
George Gray were of counsel, and were
pitted against each other. Judge Dallas
filed the opinion of the court.
The history of the case is as follows
In 1869 tine plaintiff, Charles Richard |
son and the defendants, Ephraim t. |
Walton and Francis N. Buck, entered |
into partnership for the manufacture Of
superphosphate at Wilmington, Del,
under the name of Walton, Whann q
Co. BY their agreement the term of
partnership was limited to five years,
but without any formal or express re-
newal or extension thereof, they con-
tnued in business until July 18th, 1885,
when they executed articles of disSolu-
ton. Mr.. Richardson agreed to convey
to the defendants all his interests in the
partnership, business and property, ex-
cept in certain scheduled claims and ac-
counts for $123, 436.7 4,payable $23 ,436.74
in cash, $4,000 in the defendants IL
promissory notes, all dated July 9th,
1885, each for $4,000 and payable with
interest the first in three months, and
the others respectively at the end OF
each consecutive three months thereafter
and the balance of $4,000 on July 9th,
1890, with interest payable semi-annually
secured by bond and mortgage upon
real estate. In pursuance of this agree
ment the dissolution of partnership took
place on July 23d 1885, on which date
the defendants paid to the complainant
the hand money and delivered the speci-
| fed securities, and the complainant, in
turn, executed II conveyance to them.
The suit was brought in the circuit
court of Delaware to have the terms of
the dissolution reformed on the ground
of fraud and duress. The specific allie
cations of fraud, as contained in the bill
of complaint and supported by the testi
mony and exhibits on behalf OF the com
plainant, were that in June, 1885, while
Mr.. Richardson was confined to his
house critically ill with stroke of apo
plectic paralysis, and at time when he
was threatened with financial ruin il he
was unable to arrange for meeting GER
tain commercial paper of which he was
the endorser, the defendants demanded
an immediate dissolution of the partner
ship. In pursuance of this demand
terms of dissolution, as stated, were
shortly afterwards arranged through the
negotiation of counsel. The amount to
be paid the complainant was arrived ut
by Il written computation, submitted by
the defendants to the complainant, set
ting forth the amount which had stood
upon the books of the firm to the credit
of the complainant on July list, 1854,
and adding thereto his proportion of the
ESTIMATED profits for current year,
$4,000"
} There was evidence that the nego-
tiations were carried on upon the basis
Of constantly repeated assertion by
the defendants that the profits for the
current year had not been and could
not be ascertained as yet from the books
and 1t was therefore necessary that an
estimated value should be assumed
: The bill charged that the respondents
knew, as early as the 10th of June, 1885
that the books showed that the estimate
of profits of July 18th, 1885, should be
at least double the figures stated by
them in the basis of settlement, ant
the compliments testimony showed
that on or about the 10Th of June, nearly
a month before the agreement of dis
, solution was executed, and considerably
} more than month before it was carried
t out, an accurate makeup had been OBJ
7 tanned from the books, showing that til,
9 profits for the year were Approximately
$101 900. The knowledge Of these fact
did not come to the complainant unit
November, 1885. The bill of com
s plant was filed October 18th, 1885
Q The answer of the defendants de
MED the alleged facts constituting til
+ fraud, and by way of justification
4 made serious and sweeping charge
: against the complainant. Voluminou
n testimony was taken on both sides
c Judge Wales, in the lower court, dis
n missed the bill as far as the main charg
: and prayer for relief were concerned
i but ordered an accounting before
G master to ascertain how much was du
d to MIR. Richardson on account of collec
tons made by defendants of certail
% scheduled accounts, which, by the agree
IL ment OF dissolution, were to be collects
% by the defendants, and the proper pro
II portion turned over to the complainant
IS The defendants answer alleged tina
l. but $699.30 were due Mr.. Richardso
is on account of tlese collections. TIL
master reported that the amount SO du
d MIR. Richardson was $4,000, which sur
s. the court awarded. Mr.. Richardson too
an appeal, and the case came before tn
appellate court. The argument too
"a place last month, Attorney S. s. Ho
q lingsworth and Senator Higgins appeal
q ing for the complainants and Colont
IS Benjamin Nields of Wilmington an
le Senator Gray for the defendants. Undo
+, Judge Dallas decision the finding {
t, the lower court was sustained.