Case Name: SHULSINGER v. MALONEY
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1905-04-24
Citations: 114 La. 846
Docket Number: No. 15,526
Parties: SHULSINGER v. MALONEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
(38 South. 581.)
No. 15,526.
SHULSINGER v. MALONEY.
(April 24, 1905.)
' PARTNERSHIP — DISSOLUTION—-SETTLEMENT.
When two partners in a poolroom business have made 2l monthly settlements and divisions of the net profits on a certain basis, it will require very strong evidence to make good the claim of one of them, set up for the first time after the dissolution of the partnership, and in connection with the settlement for the last month of the existence of the partnership, that the basis of settlement ought to have been different, especially where the alleged discrepancy involves a large sum.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; Thomas Fletcher Bell, Judge.
Action by A. Shulsinger against A. E. Maloney. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Pugh, Thigpen & Foster, for appellant. Wise, Randolph & Rendall, for appellee.
Rehearing denied May 22, 1905.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
The plaintiff and the defendant conducted a turf exchange or poolroom business for 21 months under a written contract of partnership. Plaintiff was to get 25 per cent, of the net profits, and defendant 75 per cent. The accounts were closely watched, and kept hy one man representing plaintiff and another representing defendant. At the end of every month a settlement was made for the month, and defendant paid plaintiff his 25 per cent, of the net profits. The payments were not always made hy defendant, hut he admits that he made some of them; that he knew the manner or basis on which the settlements were being made.
After the partnership had been dissolved, and when the parties came to make the settlement for the last month, defendant contended that he had discovered that an error had been made in all the settlements, by which the share of another person in the business, amounting to 15 per cent, of the net profits of the business, had been paid out of his, defendant's, 75 per cent., instead of being charged to the partnership account.
Much stronger evidence than defendant has adduced would be required to make the courts credit the contention.
Judgment affirmed.