Case Name: Garrett's Adm'x v. Bradford
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1877-03
Citations: 28 Gratt. 609
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Garrett’s Adm’x v. Bradford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 194–196

Head Matter:
*Garrett’s Adm’x v. Bradford.
March Term, 1877,
Richmond.
Absent, Anderson, J.
I. Appealable Decrees. — A decree which overrules certain exceptions to a commissioner’s report, and confirming the report as to the questions involved in these exceptions, is a decree settling the principles of the cause as to these questions, from which the party excepting may appeal, although the report is recommitted to the commissioner as to other matters involved in other exceptions.
H. In 1860, G, of Washington city, and 13, of Culpeper. county, in Virginia, form a partnership for grazing and selling sheep, to be conducted by B; and G executes his bond to B for $3,700, for a half interest of the sheep on hand, which is to be paid by G’s share of the net profits; and B is to be allowed such compensation for managing the business as they shall -agree upon. The partnership is closed in December 1862, when G’s share of the profits is $2,428.75. B invests the money in Confederate bonds. — Heed :
1. Accounting. — G is entitled to have his bond credited for the $2,428.75, at its scaled value in December 1862.
2. Same — Separation by War. — As the par- . ties were separated by the war, so that they comd not agree upon B’s compensation, he is entitled to have a just allowance made him for his attention to the business.
This was a suit in equity in the circuit court of Fauquier county, brought in 1866 by Milton Garrett, a resident of Washington city, against Samuel S. Bradford, of Culpeper county, to have a settlement of a partnership account in relation to the grazing and selling sheep.
By an agreement under seal bearing date the 1st day *of January 1860,' Bradford agreed to sell to Garrett one equal undivided half of eight hundred and twenty-five of his fine wool sheep, to be kept thereafter as a copartnership flock, in the possession and under the control and management of Bradford, so long as it should be mutually agreeable and satisfactory to them both. For this interest in the gheep Garrett was to pay to Bradford $100 in hand, and to execute his bond bearing interest from date for $3,700, on which he was to pay $100 each month of the year 1860, and his portion of the proceeds from sales from the flock of sheep, after paying the necessary expenses; and after that year to make monthly payments of fifty dollars, in addition to his half of the net proceeds from the sheep each vear until the bond was fully paid. Bradford was to keep account of expenses, &c. And after the first year Bradford should have such remuneration for his services in the general control of the flock as he and Garrett might agree upon.
At the June term 1866, there was a decree for an account, in which the commissioner was directed to take an account of the bond executed by Garrett to Bradford, and of all payments thereon, or other proper credits to which the same was entitled, and charge each party with all partnership moneys received, or which ought to have been received by him, and give him credit by all sums expended by him for the firm, and also for moneys which came properly to his hands, but perished on his hands without fault of his. And each party was required to answer interrogatories before the commissioner, &c.
A great mass of testimony was taken before the commissioner, and both the parties were examined; and in April 1870 the commissioner returned his report; to which the plaintiff filed eighteen exceptions. *This report terminated the partnership in December 1862.
The cause came on to be heard on the 20th of September 1870, when the court made a decree overruling the exceptions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 14, and sustaining exceptions Nos. 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18, recommitting the report to the commissioner with instructions to allow the items excluded from said report and embraced in the last named exceptions, if the same shall be sustained by satisfactory evidence; and sustaining exception No. 9, instructed the commissioner to exclude the item embraced in said exception from his report. And thereupon Garrett’s administratrix applied to a judge of this court for an appeal; which was allowed.
The only exceptions noticed in this court are the fifth, seventh and eighth. The fifth is to an allowance to Bradford in the partnership of two sums of money, one of $50 and the other of $410, for his services. This was on the ground that under the contract Bradford was not entitled to compensation. The seventh exception is that in the account shewing the balance due on the bond of Garrett to Bradford, the commissioner does not credit Garrett with $2,428.75, half of the net profits due the 1st of December 1862, as by the terms of the contract Bradford obliged Garrett to appropriate the net profits to the payment of said bond. And the eighth exception is that in the account of Garrett & Bradford with Garrett, the commissioner has credited Garrett & Bradford, and thereby charged Garrett, with a Confederate bond of $2,000, and Confederate notes $662.75. It appears by the commissioner’s statement of the partnership account, that one-half of the net profits of the concern was, on *the 1st of December 1862, $2,428.75. Instead of crediting this slim on the bond, it is brought into the account of Garrett with the partnership as a credit to him. and he is charged with the Confederate bond of $2,000, and the account is balanced bv a charge to him of $662.75 in Confederate notes, which Bradford had received and which had become worthless. The facts in relation, to this Confederate bond are stated by Judge Christian in his opinion.
Field Sr Gray, for the appellant.
Win. Green, for the appellee.
Appealable Decrees. — See Alexander v. Byrd, 85 Va. 696, citing the principal case. Reed v. Cline, 9 Gratt. 136 and Elder v. Harris, 75 Va. 71. See also, Farneyhougn v. Dickerson, 2 Rob. 582; Triplett v. Jameson, 2 Munf. 242; Bart. Ch. Pr. (2nd Ed.) 828.

Opinion:
Christian, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This^ is an appeal from the circuit court of Fauquier. The court is of opinion that the decree of the circuit court, overruling certain exceptions to the commissioner's report, was an interlocutory decree, "adjudicating the principles of the cause," from which an appeal might be taken without awaiting a final decree disposing of all the questions involved in the cause. The main subject of controversy between the parties was, whether under their contract the bond of the appellant's intestate should be credited by one half of the net profits of the partnership in the business of sheep raising; and whether under the contract of partnership the appellee was entitled to compensation for services rendered in conducting the business of said partnership. These questions were distinctly raised by the exceptions to the commissioner's report, and distinctly adjudicated by the court when it overruled these exceptions. The fact that the report was recommitted *as to other matters did not affect these questions. They were finally passed upon by the court and withdrawn from further consideration by the commissioner; and quoad these questions the decision of the court was final.
The court is therefore of opinion that the appeal in this case was not improvidently awarded.
The court is further of opinion that the decree of the circuit court was erroneous in overruling the eighth exception to the commissioner's report taken by appellant. By the express terms of the contract Garrett's bond was to be credited by "his portion of the proceeds from the sales from the flock of sheep." According to the commissioner's report (not excepted to) one half of the net proceeds of the partnership amounted to $2,428.75. This amount Bradford received in the fall of 1862. At that time Confederate currency was but slightly depreciated, not more than Federal currency. It was then universally received in payment of debts, and its purchasing value was little less than gold. At that time property was bought and sold for this currency, and except where gold was purchased with it, the depreciation was inconsiderable.
It is shown by .incontrovertible proof in the record that Bradford in the fall of 1862 sold four hundred sheep, of which Garrett was joint owner, and received the proceeds, and invested the same in Confederate bonds not for the firm, but in his own name. He now claims that these Confederate bonds, by the result of the war being worthless, .he is not accountable to Garrett for the funds he received in the fall of 1862. To support this pretension he says he "delivered" to Garrett in 1863 one of these bonds for $2,000, and' claims credit for that. It must be observed, however, *that neither in his answer, nor in his deposition, which is twice taken, does he pretend that the delivery of this bond to Garrett was received by him in payment of what was due him on account of the partnership, or that he, Bradford, so informed him that he designed it as a payment to him of what was due on account of the partnership transactions. He simply says he "delivered" to Garrett one of those bonds for $2,000. Garrett's account of this transaction is as follows: "The Confederate bond for $2,000 (No. 2,173) was given or loaned to me to carry to Washington to show our friends, and keep them from being imposed upon by spurious Confederate bonds which the northern people were trying to sell in Washington, as the genuine Confederate bond could not be assigned except with the knowledge and consent of an officer of the Confederacy, and I never dreamed of its being my personal property.'.' This account of the transaction is not denied by Bradford, and must be taken as true, and is entirely consistent with Bradford's allegation in his answer, that he "delivered" a $2,000 Confederate bond to Garrett. Garrett's statement must, therefore, be taken as true. And it is further confirmed by the production of the bond which bears date Aiigust, 1863, is issued to Bradford and had never been assigned to Garrett.
The court is therefore of opinion, that under the contract of the parties Garrett was entitled as a credit on his bond to the scaled value of the sum of $2,428.75 on the 31st December 1862, the date at which, by the report of the court, the partnership ceased, showing one-half of the net profits to be the sum above named.
The court is further of opinion, that there is no error in the decree of said circuit court in overruling *the appellant's exception as to certain allowances made to Bradford for services rendered in the joint business of sheep-raising. By the contract of the parties it was stipulated that, after the year 1860, Bradford "should receive for his services, in the general control of the flock, such remuneration as he and Garrett may agree upon." The parties being separated by the existence of the war, could make no agreement on the subject for themselves, and none was made, but we think that Bradford is entitled to reasonable compensation for the services he has rendered, which have been fairly estimated by the commissioner.
The court is therefore of opinion, that for the error above referred to in overruling the appellant's eighth exception, the said decree be reversed, and in all other respects the same be affirmed.
The decree was as follows:
The court is of opinion, for reasons stated in writing, &c., that the decree of the said circuit court was erroneous in overruling the appellant's eighth exception to commissioner Latham's report; this court being of opinion that under the contract of the parties, set forth in the appellant's bill, the bond of Garrett was entitled to a credit of the scaled value of the sum of $2,428.75, that being one-half of the net profits of the joint business of sheep-raising in December 1862, as ascertained by said commissioner's report. It is therefore adjudged and ordered that for this error the said decree be reversed and annulled, but that the same be affirmed in all other respects, and that the appellant recover against the appellee his costs by him expended in the prosecution of his ap peal here; and *it is ordered to be certified to said circuit court, with instructions to said court to direct its commissioner. in making a settlement of accounts between the parties, to credit the bond of said Garrett with the said sum of $2,428.75, scaled from its nominal value to its value in gold, as of the 31st of December 1862, which is ordered to be certified to said circuit court.
Decree REVERSED.