The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-07-14
REVIEW OF THE CASE.

With respect 10 1t.
The conclusions of law arrived at by
the court follow:
REVIEW OF THE CASE.
THAT PLAINTIFF and defendant Heath
were partners in business. as stated in
the complaint.
That said partnership began on jan
I, A. d. 1899, and was dissolved on Sept.
% 1900, by the defendant Heath with
drawing therefrom
THAT by the terms of said partner
ship the plaintiff was obliged to pay four
hfthS of the expenses, and is entitled to
receive four-ffths of the proceeds or
profits. and the defendant, Heath, is
obliged to pay one-ffth Of the expenses
and is entitled to receive one-ffth of the
proceeds or profits of the business, which
expenses were incurred and which profits
accrued to the business during the whole
of the year 1889.
THAT by the terms of the partnership,
as modified, the plaintiff is obliged to
pay three-fourths of the expenses and Is
entitled to receive three-fourths of the
proceeds or profits, and the defendant
Heath is obliged to pay one-fourth of the
expenses, and is entitled to receive one
fourth the proceeds or profits Of the bus
mess which expenses We're incurred and
which profits accrued to said business
from Jan. /, 1900, to and including Sept
g. A. D., 1900.
THAT plaintiff take nothing against
defendant Heath, by reason of the al
legged failure of defendant, Heath to
comply with instructions given by plain
tiff respecting the stock referred to in
the complaint.
THAT defendant Heath take nothing
against plaintiff m respect to his coun-
terclalm pleaded in the answer.
THAT plaintiff is entitled to judgment
against defendant Heath, that the part
nership heretofore existing between him
self and the defendant be dissolved, and
that an accounting be had between them
Of and respecting the whole of the part
neTshiD "
The court also files memorandum as
follows:
'Action for dissolution of partnership
between physicians and for an accounting
with respect thereto, and to settle other
matters of business difference.
Though the pleadings make sharp
between DR.. Schadle and DIR. Heath. I
have little trouble in reaching the fact.
I find these terms according to DR..
Schadle's claim OD Because he is clear
and positive in his testimony, and gives
the words out Of which the contract
arose, he is corroborated by two disin-
tereSted witnesses; he Is corroborated by
the circumstances DR.. Heath, when
his testimony is fully analysed, states
his conclusions rather than the language
used, and admits the use of words which
tend to disprove his theory.
LAS to DR.. Schadle's claim for damages
growing out of the loss on the Northern
Pacific stock, I have as little difficulty
in sustaining DR.. Heath's position. He
undoubtedly overlooked for awhile the
Gibraltar letter, and is censurable for
that, but there is nothing in that letter
that positively directs the sale Of the
stock at any figure 1t ever reached. 1t
authorized sale at n to so, but did not
command, and finally left the whole mat
ter to DR.. Heath's discretion. find
nothing in the evidence to show that DR..
Heath abused his friends confidence In
this matter of the stock, or neglected his
duty with respect to it
CDR. HeatF's counter claim for dam
ages growing out OF the dissolution Of
the partnership is not tenable,- either
upon the facts as in the law. have
found the fact against his contention,
both as to a four years duration of the
partnership and as to six months trip
to Europe. Even if so found. the con-
tract. being oral would be void under
the statute Of frauds, and the loss of the
six months in Europe is incapable of
measurement in money. American men
have been spoiled by such an outing