Court Opinion

ID: 9827477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:35:16.945946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:31.891290
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
As suggested by appellant, this suit was simply a case of accounting between partners. The issue thereby presented was the net profit in the business and a proper division of the same, and, to ascertain this, the losses sustained, the money paid out by each, and the amount each partner had in hand of the partnership funds were the issues included in the pleadings. '
The jury, by their findings, found the expenses paid out in the partnership, and who paid them, and what each paid. They found the losses that had been sustained in certain transactions, and the amount which was then on hand, and they found and answered to the thirteenth issue the amount that Morris then had on hand Of the partnership funds, which he had not accounted for to the partnership. These findings clearly gave appellee a right to the amount of the judgment rendered. In an accounting, he should have paid, according to the findings of the jury, the amount of the judgment to appellee. If the partners had, by an agreement, divided part of the funds, which should not have been taken into an accounting, thereby requiring a division only of the remainder, after deducting the amount divided by agreement, this agreement should have been specifically pleaded, and in the absence of such a pleading it was not an issue for the jury, and should not have been submitted, and, as submitted, it was upon an immaterial issue, and the findings could not affect the true balance found upon a true accounting of the partnership affairs. Such findings upon án immaterial issue, when not in the case pleaded, ought not to defeat a verdict or a recovery upon the amount found by a true accounting. In the case of Kelley v. Ward, 94 Tex. 289, 60 S. W. 311, the Supreme Cburt said:
“The finding of immaterial tacts cannot be made ground for reversal, if the judgment is not in conflict with the findings upon material issues.”
See, also, Railway Co. v. Bender, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 568, 75 S. W. 561; Coons v. Lain, 168 S. W. 981.
The motion will be overruled.