Opinion ID: 1890336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the plaintiff fail to allege a true claim for an accounting?

Text: ¶ 11. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's complaint does not request a true accounting. They argue that the plaintiff is seeking exoneration from allegations that he misused parts and inventory. This is not a request for an accounting. Since the plaintiff's request for an accounting is a mask for asserting chancery court jurisdiction, Tillotson v. Anders, 551 So.2d 212 (Miss.1989), is directly on point and supports the transfer of this cause to circuit court. ¶ 12. The plaintiff argues that the request for an accounting is essential to the allegations in the complaint. He argues that in order to prove that his termination was in bad faith, he must show through an accounting that he did not misuse parts and inventory which is the alleged reason his contract was terminated. The plaintiff argues that under Crowe v. Smith, 603 So.2d 301 (Miss.1992), Miss.Code Ann. § 9-5-81 (Rev.2002), and Miss. Const. art. 6, § 159 (1890), the chancery court is the only court which may hear a case for an accounting. ¶ 13. This Court in State ex rel. King v. Harvey, 214 So.2d 817 (Miss.1968), gave a comprehensive definition for an accounting. Id. at 819-20. This Court stated that: An accounting is by definition a detailed statement of the debits and credits between parties arising out of a contract or a fiduciary relation. It is a statement in writing of debts and credits or of receipts and payments. Thus an accounting is an act or a system of making up or settling accounts, consisting of a statement of the account with debits and credits arising from the relationship of the parties. Black's Law Dictionary 34-36 (4th Ed.1957).... It implies that one is responsible to another for moneys or other things, either on the score of contract or of some fiduciary relation, of a public or private nature, created by law, or otherwise. Miller v. Henry, 139 Miss. 651, 665, 103 So. 203, 204 (1925) 214 So.2d at 819-20. An accounting has traditionally been a tool used by a plaintiff against a defendant. In the case sub judice, the plaintiff attempts to initiate an accounting against himself. It is a mere disguise for what really could be accomplished through discovery. ¶ 14. The plaintiff argues that, in order to prove the allegations in his complaint, he needs an accounting to show that the cancellation of his contract was in bad faith because he did not misuse inventory and parts as alleged. There is no demand for information, which is essentially what an accounting calls for. Here, the plaintiff has the information. He does not need an accounting in order to present such information to the court. If he is seeking to obtain order forms and shipping records to corroborate his theory, he can demand these items from the defendants during discovery. ¶ 15. The demand for an accounting is a mask to assert chancery court jurisdiction as it was in Tillotson, where this Court found that [i]t is the substance of the action that should be controlling on this issue, not its form or label. 551 So.2d at 214 (quoting Thompson v. First Miss. Nat'l Bank, 427 So.2d at 976 (Miss.1983)). Our lower courts should be wary of attempts to camouflage as a complicated accounting what is in essence an action at law for breach of contract. Id. (quoting Thompson, 427 So.2d at 976). ¶ 16. Since all other allegations of the complaint allege actions at law, the circuit court is the proper jurisdiction under Miss. Const. art. 6, § 156 and Miss.Code. Ann. § 9-7-81 (Rev.2002).