The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-02
QUINN BROTHERS, SUIT.
Details of the Opinion Rendered
by the Supreme Court.
MERITS OF THE QUESTION
The Court Pays a High Compliment to
the Referee, Attorney John Lind
say - For Dissolution OF
Partnership.

The full opinion of the supreme court
in the case of Charles Quinn against
bernard Quinn was received yesterday
by the lower court The opinion, which
Is by Justice Hunt, goes fully into the
history of the noted controversy be-
tween the Quinn brothers and the suit
for dissolution of partnership and ac-
counting which was brought by Charles
Quinn during his lifetime, and proceed
ing with an opinion upon the merits of
the questions raised on the appeal sus-
tanning Judge Speer the supreme court
pays a splendid compliment to the ref
cree in the case, Attorney John Lind
say, now judge of Department T. of the
district court. In the opinion Justice
Hunt says
Counsel for Bernard Quinn objects
to the substitution of the special adj
ministrator of Charles Quinn as plant
if, but we are advised on the argu-
ment that there is a delay, on account
of some contest in the district court of
Silver Bow county, in granting letters
or administration, and that because of
such delay no administrator has yet
been appointed. Under such conditions
we believe special Administrator has a
| right to appear in a pending suit, and
| to represent the interests of the de-
ceaseds estate. 1t is commended
| that the findings to the effect that by
| their joint labors and funds the broth
ers acquired interests in common in
| real and personal property are unsup-
| ported by the evidence. We shall not
recite the testimony but merely say
| that every finding of the referee is am
ply sustained These brothers joined
| their interests in an association to carry
! on business together and to divide it's
profits or losses between them. Broth
| erly affection, mutual confidence and
| trust kept them close together as men,
and, although they made no express
| agreement forming a partnership, the
| transactions and relations of one to-
wards the other in their affairs show
| that they intended to be partners, and
were SO in law For nearly 80 years they
plodded along, acquiring and owning
| everything share and share alike, liv-
ing together as bachelors, without
books of account between them, with
out division of funds, known to the
| world as partners, and without a break
| in the ties of unmeaSured confidence
which had inseparably bound them
from their younger days, and which
| lasted until just before the close of the
| life of Charles. Unfortunately, then
came a disagreement, but it cannot af-
feet the legal relationship that existed
| between them, or deprive either of his
| share in the assets of their partnership.
| The deed from Charles to Bernard on
| Sept. 8, 1898, was evidently executed
| by way of protection ITO Bernard, and
| taken by Bernard in recognition of
| Charles equal rights in, the property
| I,
| transfer was that Charles, being less
prudent in the management of BUSH
ness than Bernard, was apt to involve
| the partnership in obligations for
| which Bernard did not wish to be re-
| sponsible without some security. But
| the realty conveyed was a partnership
estate. 1t had been purchased for part
| nership purposes, and paid for by part
| nership funds; and Notwithstanding
that part of it may have stood in the
name of one brother, or that it had been
conveyed to the brothers as tenants in
| common. it became. and was treated by
| the brothers as partnership property.
1T must therefore be regarded as part
nerShip real estate, controlled by those
principles common to all partnership
estates. After attentively examining
the evidence we approve of the findings
| and judgment. 1t is seldom that a
on the part of a referee. He has labori-
| ously entered into the accounts of the
| brothers, and in his elaborate findings
has worked out a most just and equit-
able result, supported in every respect
by competent evidence and principles
of fairness and right. The lower court
| approved of the findings. and we now
affirm the judgment thereon.
| Several errors are presented as to
the referees rulings upon certain ques-
tions occurring on the trial In but
| one instance was there possible errol
but that was not of sufficient import
| ance to warrant reversal of the case
| 1t arose by the referee sustaining an
objection to a question put to a wit
ness on cross-eXamination, asking If
the witness was not unfriendly to the
defendant. The interrogatory was per
fectly competent, and it was error tC
| mold otherwise. Just afterwards, how
ever, the witness was ask, ! if he had
not had defendant arrested once for
threatening the witness life since the
trouble between the brother had
arisen. Witness answered this quas-
ton by saying that he had had him
arrested. and about that time had sued
defendant for $4,000 damages for SIAN
der. This answer, we think naturally
showed an unfriendly feeling on wit
ness part to defendant, and sufficiently
cured the error in excluding the pre-
vious question more directly put. Thus
no prejudicial error was committed
THE referee in the course of the trial
was instructed by the court not tC
rule upon any objections offered to the
testimony. Thereafter he declined tC
pass upon certain objections interposed
by the defendant. We have looked into
these several objections, and find that
no harm could have been done by the
testimony admitted, as it was compe.
tent for the purpose of getting at the
several sums of money chargeable tC
the brothers in adjusting their &C
counts. 1t is a better practice, how
ever for the referee to rule upon OBJ
jections as they are made, in order tC
give the objecting party the benefit OF
exceptions. and we advise that practice
in the future. but, as no injury was
done by the different cnurse pursned II