Case Name: John Yangas, Appellant, v. Max Weinschenk et al., Appellees
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-03-26
Citations: 204 Ill. App. 424
Docket Number: Gen. No. 22,736
Parties: John Yangas, Appellant, v. Max Weinschenk et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
John Yangas, Appellant, v. Max Weinschenk et al., Appellees.
Gen. No. 22,736.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Partnership—when evidence is sufficient to show termination of. Evidence held sufficient to warrant the finding that the co- partnership formerly existing between certain three defendants was terminated prior to the recovery of a pertain judgment against one of them, and that such one had thereafter no interest in the copartnership or in its funds except as an employee.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
Affirmed.
Opinion filed March 26, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Creditor’s bill by John .Yangas, complainant, against Max Weinschenk, John Shuerger, John I. Bartley and the North Side State Savings Bank, defendants, on a judgment recovered by complainant against the defendant Weinschenk. From a decree dismissing the bill; complainant appeals.
Weinschenk was alleged to be the owner of an undivided one-third interest in the Dearborn Baking Company, which kept its bank account with the defendant bank, and the bank admitted a deposit to the credit of that company. The other defendants denied that Weinschenk was a copartner in the company, which was a copartnership. The suit was referred to a master, who recommended dismissal of the bill, and exceptions to his report were overruled and the bill dismissed for want of equity.
Edwin White Moore, for appellant.
Landon & Holt and Albert A. Kraft, for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Partnership, § 259*—when evidence is sufficient to show- that partnership was not indebted to retiring partner. On a creditor's bill on a judgment against a retiring member of a partnership, evidence held sufficient to show that the partnership was not indebted to the partner at the time of the commencement of the suit