Case Name: W. L. Coleman vs. P. J. Coleman
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1859-05
Citations: 12 Rich. 183
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. L. Coleman vs. P. J. Coleman.
Judges: Wardlaw, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 183–184

Head Matter:
W. L. Coleman vs. P. J. Coleman.
Partnership — Award— Contract. .
The plaintiff and defendant were partners, a.nd for settlement of their accounts, referred them to arbitrators, who awarded that each party pay one-half of the outstanding debts of the firm. The plaintiff paid the whole: — Held, that he was entitled to recover one-half from the defendant in an action at law.
BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT EDGEFIELD, SPRING TERM, 1859.
The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is ás follows:
“ In this case it appeared that the plaintiff and defendant had been partners, that on a bill' filed for an account, the matter had been referred to arbitrators, who examined and awarded updn the matters in dispute, and in the award, directed that the plaintiff and defendant should each pay one-half of the outstanding debts of the firm. This action was brought to recover one-half of the debts of the firm paid by the plaintiff subsequent to the award.
“ The defendant moved'for a nonsuit on the grounds set down on his grounds of appeal. I overruled his motion. The plaintiff proved the payment of debts subsequent to the award, to an amount for the cine-half of which he ultimately had a verdict.”
The defendant appealed and now renewed his motion for a nonsuit, upon the grounds:
1. That the parties were partners ; 'that the demands sued upon arose out of their partnership business and transactions ; that no precedent accounting had been had between them or balance struck, ascertaining a specific sum to be due to the plaintiff, and that his áction in this behalf cannot therefore be maintained.
2. That the award of 21st. May, 1854, operated as an accounting or settlement between the parties to a partial and limited extent only, and did not avail to modify or enlarge the legal remedies of the plaintiff in respect of the demands asserted by this suit.
Carroll, for appellant,
cited Chit, on Con. 236, 237, 599; Smith Mer. Law, 33, .34, 28 ; Course vs. Prince, 1 Mill, 413.
Adams, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
O'Nball, J.
The award in this case, in the Court of Equity, and its confirmation, in that Court, ended the relation of partners between the parties. It directed that the outstanding debts of the firm should be paid by the parties, in equal shares. This made the debts the same as joint debts. One paying the debts in whole, would be entitled to contribution from the other.
If the defendant could have shown, that the debts paid by the plaintiff were paid out of the partnership funds, it would have constituted a good defence: but he was not able to do so. The plaintiff proved the payment after the award, of outstanding debts of the firm, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, the legal presumption was, that it was out of his own funds: and he was entitled to, and did recover a moiety. These views dispose of the grounds for a nonsuit. Those taken for a new trial were abandoned.
The motions are dismissed.
Wardlaw, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.
Motion dismissed.