Opinion ID: 1235661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiffs are entitled to the full amount of the sums misappropriated, without deduction of amounts paid to employees.

Text: Plaintiffs' remaining contention on cross-appeal is that the trial court erred in allowing defendants a set-off of some $34,656.10, representing that portion of the $82,500 found to have been misappropriated by the defendants which was paid to salesmen who secured the original listing and who secured the various clients who became partners in the venture. Plaintiffs again cite Liggett v. Lester, supra, 237 Or. at 60, 390 P.2d 351, in which we distinguished cases involving dealings with third parties and held, under the facts of that case, that a partner who had withheld a secret discount must acount for that entire amount. To the same effect, the following rule is stated in 1 Rowley on Partnership 532, § 21.1 (2d ed 1960):    The partner receiving secret commissions on the partnership transactions must account for the whole amount of the commissions so received, even though he may have been assisted in the deal by a third person, to whom he paid a part of such commissions.    Defendants contend, on the contrary, that [t]he power of a court of equity to fashion justice should not be limited and that [r]emedies should be shaped to meet the needs of justice required by the facts of each case. After a review of this record, however, we believe that the facts of this case are sufficiently aggravated that the defendants should be held liable to account for payment to the partnership of the full amount misappropriated by defendants, without deductions or set-off of payments made to employees. [3] The fact that in this case the commission received by International and by Harris was shared with salesmen employed by them does not, in our opinion, require a different result under the facts of this case. Except as modified by the allowance of interest and the disallowance of the set-offs claimed by defendants, the decree of the trial court is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of computing interest and the amount to be awarded by the final judgment. Affirmed as modified.