Evening journal., 1894-03-14
Mr.. HIGGINSVS. Mr.. GRAY
Diamond State Senators as Op-
posing Counsel
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURTS

Procuring a Dissolution Of the Firm OF
Walton, whann 4 Co.
In the United States lCiccuit Court Of
Appeals, with Judges Dallas. Butler and
Green presiding, argument was yester
day commenced in a case in which United
States Senators Anthony Higgins aud
George Gray, are pitted against each
other as counsel.
The history of the case is that in 1869
the plaintiff, Charles Richardson, aud
the defendants, Erhraim T. Walton and
Francis n Buck, entered into partner
ship for the manufacture of superphos-
phate in this city, under the name of
Walton, Whann q Co.
The Company DissOlves.
BY their written agreement the term Of
the partnership was limited to five years,
but, without any formal or express re
newRl or extension thereof, they con-
tinued in business until July 13. 1885,
when they executed articles Of dissolu
tion, whereby Mr.. Richardson agreed TO
convey TO the defendants all his interest
in the partnership, business aud property
Except in certain scheduled claims and
sccounts) for 1928 436 "A, payable 1928
436 "A ia cash 500 600 in the defendants
twelve prOmissory notes, all dated July
6, 1885, each for $50 900. 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 $40. 900 on July 9,
1890, with interest payable semi annually,
secured by bona and mortgage upon
real estate
In pursuance of this agreement, the
dissolution Of the partnership took place
on July %, 1885, on which date the de
PENDANTS paid to the complainant the
hand money and delivered the spsci led
securities, and the complainant ia turn
executed a conveyance TO them. The
suit was brought in the Circuit Court Of
this state to have the terms Of the disso-
luton reformed on the ground Of fraud
and duress.
Fraud Is Alleged.
The specific allegations of fraud are
that in June, 1885. while Mr. Richardson
was confined TO his house critically i'll
with a stroke of apoplectic paralysis
and at time when he was threatened
with financial ruin If he was unable to
arrange for meeting certain commercial
paper of which he was the indorser, the
l defendants demanded an immediate dis
solution OF the partnership.
! In pursuance of this demand terms Of
disso ution, as stated, were shortly ST
terwards arranged through the negotia-
tions of counsel. The amount to be paid
the complainant was arrived at by q
written computation submitted by the
defendants TO the complainant, setting
forth the amount which had stood upon
the books Of the drm to the credit Of the
complainant on July /, 1884, and adding
thereto his proportion of the estimated
profits for current year, $4,000.
The evidence shows that the negoti-
ations we're carried on upon the basis Of
a constantly repeated assertion by the
defendants, that the profits for the cur
rent year had not and could not be
ascertained as yet from the books, and
that il was therefore necessary that an
estimated value should be assumed.
Profits of One Year.
The bill then charges that the re-
! spondents knew, as early as the 10Th Of
June, 1885, that the books showed that
the estimate of profits to July !. 1885,
should be at least double the figures
stated by them in the basis of settle
ment, and the complainant's testimony
stated that on or about the 18th of June,
neatly a month before the agreement OF
dissolution was executed and consider
ably more than q month before IL was
carried out, an accurate makeup had
been obtained from the books, showing
that the profits for the year were Rp
proximately S10l, 900
The knowledge of these facts did not
come to the complainant until November
1885. The bill of complaint was filed
October II, 1883 The answer of the &c
PENDANTS denies the alleged facts con-
stituting the fraud, and by way of justi
tication makes serious and sweeping
charges against the complainant Volu
minous testimony was taken on boil
sides
The lower court dismissed the bill as
far as the main charge and prayer for re
lief were concerned, but ordered an &C
counting before a master to ascertain
how much was due to Mr.. Richardson OF
account of collections made by the dc
PENDANTS Of certain scheduled accounts
which. by the agreement of dissolution,
were 10 be collected by the defendants
and the proper proportion turned over Il
the complainant
! Inc oolehuduto answer aieBeu bhu
but S699 80 we're due Mr. Richardson
on account of these collections. Tit
master reported that the amount due TIN
E complainant was "a. 800, which SUN th'
] court awarded Mr. Richardson took 81
, appeal and the case came before tn
t Appellate Court Attorney S S Hol-
llingsworth, of Philadelphia. and Senate
Higgins appear for the complainant, ant
Colonel Benjamin Nields and Senate
Gray for the defendants. One Of th
counsel stated that there is yet abou
I $500 involved in the dispute Tn
! argument is to conclude this morning.