The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-07-25
MASTER APPOINTED.

MASTER APPOINTED.
on April 81. 1899. a master was ap-
pointed. "to state an account of the
partnership dealings and transactions
between plaintiff and defendant, from
the beginning of the partnership, in ac-
cordance with the decree of this court
made March I, 1895" The fourth ex-
ception of the plaintiff is also dis
missed: no discussion appears to be
necessary with reference to it.
This brings us to the third and re-
naming exception of the plaintiff, and
the first and second and only excep-
tons of the defendant which refer
to the matter of charging the plain
tiff with interest on the balance found
by the master to be due from him to
the defendant. Plaintiff contends that
he should not be charged with any in
terest, while the defendant claims
that he should be allowed interest
from February %. 1898, the date upon
which the defendant received the last
item Of cash from the partnership
funds.
There is no settled rule upon the
question of allowing interest on un-
settled partnership accounts: the al
lowanCe or refusal of interest depends
upon the circumstances of each par
tiCular case. Gyger's appeal 62 Pa. 13.
Mr.. Justice Sharswood, in delivering
| that case. says: THE fifth assign
ment of error is in charging John
Gyger interest prior to the settlement
| of accounts between the parties. Mr..
| Lindlcy remarks that the principles
upon which, in taking partnership ac-
| counts, interest is allowed or disal-
| lowed, do not appear to be well set =
| tied: | Lindley on Partnerships. 649.
| In some cases ii has been held that
the period of the dissolution Of the
partnership is the proper time to make
| a rest for the purpose: Sloughton VS..
| Lynch, 2 Johns Oh. r. 2O9; Holister
vs.. Barkley, II n. H., sol.
JUDGE STORY'S RULE
Judge story has laid down different
| rule. Interest he says lis not allowed
upon partnership accounts generally.
until after balance Is stduCk or a set
| tlement between the partners unless the
parties have otherwise agreed or acted
| in their partnership concerns: Dexter
VS.. Arnold. Mason 2S9. Vice Chan
| CellOr SandfOrd, of New York. in Be
after a review of all the authorities
| came 10 the conclusion that there is
no general rule established, but that
| the allowance or refusal of interest de-
pendS upon the circumstances of each
| particular case This seems much the
| SAFEST pflnclple 10 adopt, IN view OF
| the confidential relations of the par
| ties and the variety and complication
| of such accounts. No unbendng rule
could be laid down which would not
| in particular cases. work Injustice
| But While there is no settled rule tt
| govern each case as il may arise. vet
| the general rule seems to be that in.
terest will not be allowed until a bal.
ance has been struck and the amount
| payable from one party to another as.
| Certained. Grubbs appeal G6 Pa. III
| Browns appeal. SO Pa l39: Rehll vs.
| McTague, ia Pa. 81; Jones VS.. Far.
quhar, 1856 Pa. 3S6.
We see nothing in the facts anG
| circumstances in this case to war.
| rant any departure from the genera
rule Az the time of the dissolution
the plaintiff formed a new partner.
ship with Mr. +. II. Jermyn. under
the firm name of Jermyn & Duffy, anl
the new firm purchased the stock OF
the old firm of Gilmore Il Duffy foi
| about 1886, 900. BY mutual consent be,
tween Gilmore * Duffy. $4,000 of thu
purchase money was put into the new
firm as Mr.. Duffys contribution to thu
| capital
GILMORE AGREED UPON.
Mr. Gilmore was agreed upon a.
| the liquidatinG partner of the ol,
firm. Mr.. Duffy gave Mr.. Gilmore :
judgment note for $4,000 to secure tn,
payment of any balance which Nigh