Court Opinion

ID: 9536701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:05:29.628919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:04.294646
License: Public Domain

ME. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that the judgment should be set aside but I think the cause should be remanded with directions for the court to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to all or any of the items which he claims for money borrowed and materials furnished to maintain and keep up the business. There were many such items claimed including lumber, expense of hauling logs from Columbia Falls to Eexford, charges for hauling zonolite, indebtedness of the firm charged to plaintiff personally, and many other items totalling more than $6,000. True defendant contends that none of these items was properly allowable but we are not favored with a finding by the court on the subject or if so the findings on the subject are conflicting.
The court specifically found that plaintiff has been “the moving spirit in giving the property” its present net value of $13,000. The court found that plaintiff “has borrowed money and furnished materials to build it up. He is entitled to much more than Ben.” The court then proceeded as follows: “The court’s guess is that the partners have just about earned the business as it is now, and that Dave has earned twice as much as Ben” and then concluded to divide the amount realized by the receiver one-third to Ben and two-third? to plaintiff.
It is true that in its conclusions of law the court stated: 1 ‘ The partnership is not indebted to either member of the partnership, and the receiver should not pay any indebtedness claimed by either partner to be owing him from the firm.” That conclusion is inconsistent with the finding that Dave “borrowed *189money and furnished materials to build it (the partnership business) up. He is entitled to much more than Ben.”
I think the court should be required to make specific findings on the several items above referred to as well as on items of credit which defendant contends he should have. I would allow this to be done either on the evidence now before it or on such further evidence as either party may desire to submit.
I do not believe this court should become the trier of the facts on the cold record unaided by the personal presence of the witnesses and without the benefit of findings on the part of the trial judge.