Opinion ID: 1626364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: master and accounting

Text: It is conceded by all parties that this case was to be tried first on the sole question of whether a partnership existed. There are various places in the record where attorneys for appellants were attempting to bring out testimony regarding money matters, and counsel for the appellee objected, stating that what the question referred to was in the matter of accounting. Mr. Thomas: If the Court please, that would be a matter of accounting. The Court: Yes that would be in the matter of accounting. Mr. Thomas: If the Court please, that's still going into accounting. The Court: I think you're burdening the record here now.       Mr. Thomas: Now, if the Court please, that's in the accounting, I don't see where that's a basis here at all. I don't object to the boy answering. The Court: I think that's a matter of accounting, what the profits were.       Mr. Hobbs: Now, if the Court please, I think we've agreed to it three times that the question before the Court at this time is whether this is a general or limited partnership. The question of all this money should be referred to a Master. The Court: Granted.       Mr. Thomas: If the Court please, I'm going to object to all this line of questioning, it's just taking up the Court's time, everybody's time, encumbering the record, on something that's not even before the Court; it having been stipulated before the trial that the only question that would be presented to the Court was the general or limited partnership. The Court: Let's try to narrow it down. From these quotations of objections made by counsel it is apparent that counsel and the Court during the trial agreed that if the Court found that there was a partnership, then there would have to be either an accounting by the Court or by a Master. It is also evident from the record of trial that no accounting either by the Chancellor or by a Master was taken to strike an account or balance between the parties as a result of the Court's finding of a one-third partnership. In the course of the trial to determine the existence or nonexistence of a partnership, it became necessary for an abundance of testimony to be introduced relative to the handling of money and the financial affairs of the business. It was from these figures that the Chancellor made his findings and disposed of the entire case. Clearly, this was error. In fact appellee concedes on appeal that there was at least one error in the Court's calculations in his favor which was in excess of $1,000. This partnership existed from July 1946 through October 31, 1954, not just a period of months but of years. An accounting will be complicated. It is evident from the record that there are many account books, tax records and other material available which will enable a Master to strike an equitable balance between the parties. As was said many years ago by this Court in Bryan v. Morgan, 35 Ark. 113, 115, The Chancellor may himself state an account and announce the result, and decree accordingly. But this practice should be confined to simple and obvious cases in order to save the expense to litigants. In complicated transactions justice cannot be well done without a reference. and in Excelsior White Lime Co. v. Rieff, 107 Ark. 554, 155 S.W. 921, this Court stated the rule we apply here: Where numerous items are in dispute, and it is necessary to determine item by item to strike a balance between the parties, the court should refer the matter to a master to state the account. Reversed in part and remanded with directions to appoint a Master to state an account between the parties and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.