Middletown transcript., 1894-03-17
SENATORS HIGGINS AND GRAY.
Argument in a Notable Case I'D the
u. 8. Circuit Court or Appeals.

l .a d
Argument in Notable Case Id the
U. 8. Circuit Court Of Appeals.
The case of Richardson vs.. E. T. Walton
and F. N. Buck was called for argument in
the United States circuit court of appeals
in Philadelphia. A history of the case Is
as follows:
In 1869, the plaintiff, Charles Richardson,
and the defendants, Ephraim T. Walton
and Francis N. Buck, entered into partner
ship for the manufacture Of superphos.
| phate, at Wilmington, Del, under The name
of Walton, Whann-& & Co. By their written
agreement the term of the partnership was
limited to five years, but, without any
formal or express renewal or extention
thereof, they continued in business until
July 18th, 1885. when they executed articles
of dissolution. Mr.. Richardson agreed to
convey to the defendants all his interests in
| the partnership, business and property,
except in certain scheduled claims and &C
counts. for $123, 3,43e IA; payable. $23 ,4s6.74
in cash, $4,000 in the defendants IL pro-
missory notes, all dated July 9th. 1885, each
for 5000, and payable with interest, the
| first in three months and the others respect
lively at the end of each consecutive three
months thereafter, and the balance of $40,-
900 on July 9th, 1890, with interest payable
semi-annually, secured by a bond and
mortgage upon real estate. In pursuance Of
this agreement the dissolution of partner.
ship took place on July 23d, 1885, on which
date the defendants paid to the complain
ants the hand money and delivered the
specified securities, and the complainants.
in turn, executed conveyance to them..
The suit was brought in the circuit
court of Delaware to have terms Of the
dissolution reformed OIL the ground of
fraud and duress. The specific allegations
of fraud, as contained in the bill of COM
plaint, and supported by the testimony
and exhibits on behalf of complainant, are
that in June. 1885, while Mr.. Richardson
was confined to his house critically ill
with stroke of apoplectic paralysis, and
at a time when he was threatened with
fin nancial ruin if he was unable to arrange
for meeting commercial paper of which he
was the endorser, the defendents demanded
an immediate dissolution of the partner
ship. In persuance of this demand terms of
dissolution, as stated, were shortly after
ward arranged through the ne.
gotiations of counsel. The amount to
be paid the complainant was arrived at by
a written computation submitted by the
defendents to the complainant, setting
forth the amount which had stood upon
the books of the firm to the credit of the
complainant on July 1st. 1884, and adding
thereto his proportion of the estimated
profits for thecurrent year S50,000." The
evidence shows it is alleged, that the nego-
tiations were carried on upon the basis of
constantly repeated assertion by the defen-
dants; that the profits for the currant year
had not been and could not be ascertalned
as yetfrom the books, and it was therefore
necessary that an estimated value should be
assumed The bill then charges that the
respondents knew, as early as the 18th of
June, 1885, that the books showed that the
estimate of profits of July 1st, 1885, should
be at least double the figures stated by
them in the basis of settlement, and the
complainants testimony showed that on or
about the 18th of June, nearly month be-
fore the agreement of dissolution was ex-
ecuted, and considerably more than a
month before it was carried out, an accu-
rate made up had been obtained from the |
books, showing that the profits for the
year were approximately SOLO The |
knowledge CT these facts did not come to |
the complainant until November, 1885. |
The bill of complaint was filled October,
18th, 1888.
The answer of the defendants denies the |
alleged facts constituting the fraud, and by |
way of justification, makes serious and |
sweeping charges against the complainant. |
Voluminous testimony was taken on both |
sides. The lower court dismissed the bill |
as far as the main charge and prayer for |
relief were concerned but ordered an ac- |
counting before master to ascertain how |
much was due to Mr.. Richardson on ac- |
count of collections made by the defendants |
of certain scheduled accounts, which, by |
the agreement of the dissolution, were to |
be collected by the defendants and the |
proper proportion turned over to the COM
plainent. The nefendants' answer alleged |
that but $699. 80 were due Mr.. Richardson |
on account of these collections. The mas |
ter reported that the amount due the COM
plainant was 81 5000, which sum the court |
awarded. MIR. Richardson took an appeal |
to the appellate court.
Attorney S. S. Hollingsworth and Sena-
tor Higgins appear for the complainant,
and Colonel Benjamin Nields of Whining
ton and Senator Gray for the defendants. |
One of the counsel stated that there is yet |
about $50, 900 involved in the dispute. The
argument concluded this morning.