Case Name: Thrasher, Appellant, v. Rothrock
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1954-05-24
Citations: 377 Pa. 562
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 75
Parties: Thrasher, Appellant, v. Rothrock.
Judges: Before Stern, C. J., Stearns, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 377
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Thrasher, Appellant, v. Rothrock.
Argued April 12, 1954.
Before Stern, C. J., Stearns, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
Reporter’s Note: The issue in this suit in equity was whether the remaining assets of a partnership should he distributed according to an account stated, prepared by the partnership’s accountant (as plaintiff contended), or according to a subsequent written agreement between the parties (as defendant contended). The chancellor held that (1) the latter was a valid agreement, (2) the evidence did not prove that a term had been omitted from the written agreement by mutual mistake, and (3) the written agreement superseded the earlier account stated. The chancellor also held that the defendant had not proved his counterclaim, and dismissed the complaint. Upon consideration of defendant’s exceptions to the ruling on the counterclaim, they were sustained and a final decree was entered dismissing the complaint and setting forth the amount due the defendant out of the remaining partnership assets.
Plaintiff appealed.
ISamuel Finestone, with him W. Horace Hepburn, Jr., for appellant.
Frederick V. Hebard, with him John A. Fichman, 3rd, and Clark, Hebard & Spahr, for appellee.
May 24,1954:

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam,
The final decree entered by the learned court below is affirmed at the appellant's costs on the adjudication of President Judge Bok as modified by the opinion for the court en banc in disposing of the exceptions filed to the decree nisi.