Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-08-01
HILL.KENNEDY CASE.

The opinion Of the supreme court In
the Hill-Kennedy case Is generally In
favor Of the defendant, Mr.. Hill, rather
than in favor of the plaintiffs, Messrs
Kennedy, in that it upholds the con-
tention Of the plaintiff that the assets
of the dissolved firm should be divided
in accordance with the written part
nership agreement that placed the
capital stock at $105,000 instead Of on
valuation Of $4,000 fixed by Judge
Klugh as the real valuation. 1nas-
much as the original agreement rec
ognized that the defendant owned
80-105ths Of the capital stock and the
plaintiffs only 25-105ths and the profits
were to be divided one-third to each
partner. a reduction Of the nominal
value of the capital stock would great
ly reduce the amount Of the final assets
that would be required to account for
capital stock and largely increase the
amount that would be credited to prof.
it's, the advantage being In favor OF
the plaintiffs as against the defendant.
The upholding of the defendants con-
tention means a much larger propor-
ton of the final assets to be applied to
capital stock and a much smaller pro-
portion to profits. The defendant con-
tended that the $4,000 allowed by the
court as receivership expenses should
be paid by each party to the litigation
on the proportion to his interest in the
assets: but the supreme court upholds
Judge Klugh in the opinion that all
this expense should fall on the defend
ant. Because however Of the general
interest in the case and the danger OF
error arising out Of an attempt to give
a comprehensive summary, 1t Is worth
while to reproduce the opinion Of the
supreme court in full, as follows:
In this action for the dissolution and
settlement of a partnership between
the plaintiffs and the defendant, re-
ceiver was appointed on account or ir-
|reconcilable differences and disputes
between the partners, and the assets
are now in his hands. The questions to
be determined relate to the distrlbu-
ton of the assets between the plaintiffs
and the defendant. The record con-
tains two reports Of Mr.. ]. Lyles Glenn
as referee, DEGREES by Judge Klugh
land Special Judge Moore, and numer-
Gus exceptions to these reports and de-
crees. We shall not state the various
steps in the protracted litigation, nor
refer in detail to the many exceptions,
for the reason that 1t Is conceded on
all sides that the rights Of the parties
and the method Of stating the accounts
depend on the construction Of the
partnership contract.
Before the partnership was formed
the defendant had been conducting a
mercantile business at Sharon for
about fifteen years. The plaintiffs
Chris. L. Kennedy and Porter B. Ken
nedy, under the firm name Of Kenne-
dy Brothers, had been engaged in the
mercantile business at the same place
for about three years. The two con-
Germs were merged into new part
nership, and a formal written agree
ment was signed on June IA, 1905, in
which it was recited that the partner
ship had been actually formed on May
20, 1905. The following provisions Of
the partnership contract bear upon
the questions at issue:
Life of partnership. The partner
ship is to expire by its own limitation,
on the first day of January, 1907;
provided, that it shall be incumbent
upon the member or members desir-
ing a dissolution Of the partnership at
that time to give written notice, not
less than thirty days prior to the first
day of January, Of such desire; and
the effect Of the failure to give such
notice shall be to extend the life of
the partnership for one year; and so,
from year to year, the partnership
may be dissolved on any first day of
January. commencing with January OF
1907, by the giving Of such written
notice, by any one or more Of its men,
bers. thirty days prior to the first day
of January, the failure to give such
notice to result in extending the life
of the partnership for one year