Court Opinion

ID: 3585086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:35:19.474588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:44.810007
License: Public Domain

I concur with the views of Judge POTTER. The written memorandum, to the effect that the partnership was dissolved by mutual consent, and that the defendant was authorized and consented "to settle all debts to and by the firm," did not necessarily have the effect to embrace or merge any agreement which may have been made by way of adjustment between the parties. The dissolution was an independent fact, and the power assumed by the defendant to collect and pay the outstanding bills and liabilities of the firm did not, in legal effect, involve the fact of adjustment of the accounts between the parties, or exclude the existence of an agreement of that character. That may properly have been the subject of oral contract between them, contemporaneously with the writing and independently of it. And upon the principle that a part only of the agreement was reduced to writing, it was competent to prove that they had adjusted their matters so as to dispense with any further accounting, and so as to create a liability of the defendant at law for the payment of the amount which should become due the plaintiff pursuant to such adjusting contract.
The fact so found by the jury being permitted by the evidence, the recovery was justified for the amount ascertained, which the defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed. *Page 263