Case Name: Executors of Hasting Dial vs. John Rogers
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1811-06
Citations: 4 Des. Eq. 175
Docket Number: 
Parties: Executors of Hasting Dial vs. John Rogers.
Judges: Heard by Chancellor James.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
Laurens, Washington District.
Heard by Chancellor James.
Executors of Hasting Dial vs. John Rogers.
cashsr^.
Bill for an account by tlie representatives of a deceased co-partnef in a particular line of business. The answer admits tlie partnership, but states that a settlement had taken place with the deceased. This being'corroborated by evidence of the declarations, of the deceased, die bill must be dismissed.
The complainants state that their - te afor entered into copartnership with the defendant to survey lands, and.-#* to divide equally the profits of the sale of , sack lands between them. That defendant did survey certain lands., and obtain grants for the same, and that the expenses-of such grants were paid by Dial, the testator. That the defendant has sold said lands, and refuses to account the complainants. Therefore, the bill prays that ffiay account and pay over to the executors, one half the amount of the sales.
JUNE, 1811
The answer admits the copartnership upon the con* dition,s stated in the bilí, that certain lands were granted to the defendant and the expenses paid by Dial. That defendant sold the lands ; and defendant states, that he has fully settled with Dial, the testator, for the same.
This statement in the answer, of having settled, with the testator, has also been supported by the evidence of Maj. Downs and Gen. Wolf, who have sworn, that Dial, the testator, told them, that the defendant had settled all matters, and that he, the testator, claimed no land.
The complainants offered the evidence of James Bumpass, taken under commission, and the testimony of James Dial, the son of the testator, sworn on his voir-dire, but neither of these appeared to contradict the evidence of the two witnesses, Downs and Wolf.
* Therefore, as the testimony on the part of . the defendant evidently preponderates, let the complainant’s bill be dismissed with costs.
W. James.
Grcswell for appellant. — Farrow for respondent..

Opinion:
From this decree there was an appeal which was heard by the chancellors James, Thompson, Desaus-imre and Gaillard; and the decree was affirmed.