The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-05-10

Rcfcre e-Other Matters Of Interest
in and About the Courts.
The opinion of the supreme court in
| the Gilmore Duffy case was received
yesterday by Prothonotary Copeland.
1t atllrms Judge Kelly's finding that an
agreement by one partner to pay ten
per cent. nerest on the difference be-
tween their investments In the part
| nership is not affected by the usury
| laws.
Gilmore and Duffy entered into part
| nership in the wholesale grocery busi-
ness. Gilmore put in about three times
as much as Duffy in the capitalization
of the concern. When 1t came to u dis
solution of the partnership, Gilmore
claimed $1,000 more than Duffy was
willing to allow, the claim being based
on II provision of their agreement, that
Duffy should allow Gilmore 10 per cent.
interest on the difference between the
respective amounts invested.
Attorney ID. j. Davis. who was ap-
pointed master to adjust the dispute
refused to allow the Gilmore claim on
the ground that it was in violation of
y
laws to per cent. Judge Kelly in re-
viewing the masters report. reversed
this finding and allowed the 10 per
Judge Kelly's finding. The opinion of
the supreme court was written by JUS
tice Mitchell and is as follows
Objections having been made by appellee that
the appellants paper book did not contain the
nf :l,n ,yiI nII liz, of or
lor were withdrawn except the tenth and in or.
der 20 facilitate the hearing upon that the fol-
lowing statement Of facts from the appellec's
paper book was agreed to as the basis of the
courts consideration OF the case:
"'lhc ,mdispntcd iicts is that these two parties
in forming their partnership agreement. there be-
ing great disparity in the capital which each
had contributed, agreed that in distributing the
profits at the end of each year, Duty should pay
Gilmore ten Per cent. interest on the difference
in their capital. This was actually done at the
end OF each year and the charges fairly entered
upon the books, which were equally open TO oX-
animation by both partners. and of the result OF
which statements were given TO Duty each
year.
The master found that this agreement was
lsurouG. but the court sustained an exception and
held otherwise. This ruling is the subject Of the
only assignment o! error now before US
The agreement was not within the usuiy laws
1t Was not for interest properly so called. but
for share of profits. The money was not a
loan FROM creditor to debtor, but contribution
to the partnership capital and was all the time
at the risk OF the business. The agreement was a
mere method OF division of profits between part
ners having unequal interests in the firm.
Ii it had stipulated that Gilmore should first
have onc.tcnth or any other fixed proportion Of
the profits, and then the rest should be divided,
the effect would be the same. As said in Scott
vs. Kennedy, opinion filed at this term, ''Whelcr
the sum to be paid was fixed in advance or left
to be determined by fixed percentage. is un.
important. long il was share Of the profits
only"
Judgment affirmed.
Referee Davis allowed Gilmore S5.-
9l0.35. He claimed $S,61035. The Su-
preme court awards him the full amount
of his claim. Il. Fl. Jermyn was Mr..
Duffy's bondsman in the appeal