Court Opinion

ID: 9864356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 12:53:32.963828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:27.046516
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing. McHaney, Justice. Appellee insists we were in error in stating in the original opinion that: “In view of the disposition we make of the case on direct appeal, it becomes unnecessary to consider or determine the cross-appeal. ” He is correct as to points 1 and 2 of the cross-appeal, that is, the decision made on the main question in the case did not settle these two points of the cross-appeal. 1. In the decree the court rendered judgment for appellants and against appellee for $2,535.52 “which was the balance due the deceased partner, Clara Zach, upon her drawing account in said partnership,” and this is item 1 of the cross-appeal. After the death of Clara Zach, Irving Zach, son of one of the appellants, and a public accountant in Brooklyn, New York, examined the partnership books of account at his disposal to arrive at the drawings of each of the partners. He found that appellee had drawn $13,039.48 more than Clara Zach. This amount was paid by appellee to appellants by a check drawn on the Balfour Hotel or partnership account. Later Irving Zach examined the books further and found additional drawings by appellee over and above those of Clara Zach in the sum of $2,535.52. He testified how that sum was overlooked, and his explanation thereof appeared to the trial court to be reasonable, as it does to us. Appellee did not deny the correctness of the witness’s testimony, but admitted that if the books showed he owed it, he was willing to have it entered as a charge against his account. Appellee relies on the plea of an account stated, but that plea is not available against either fraud, mistake or duress. Coffman v. Kirby, 200 Ark. 998, 142 S. W. 2d 224. 2. Appellee also contends that the court erred in refusing to allow him more than $60 per week as salary and fee for “ liquidating the dissolved partnership.” Up to the time of this lawsuit appellee was not liquidating the partnership, but was continuing it. His agreement with appellants was that each of the three should receive $60 as salary. This was all he was entitled to. The petition for rehearing is denied.