Court Opinion

ID: 9826293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:43:57.645989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:59.965069
License: Public Domain

On Petition eor Rehearing

PUR CURIUM.

Both parties have filed petitions for a rehearing upon grounds which well be disposed of.
The respondents ask for a rehearing of the appeal upon two grounds:
(1) That in the-statement of the account of the estate of C. R. Lewis, showing a credit balance of $1,970.11, the debit item “Accounts of Mrs. Lewis and children after death of Lewis, including his personal account, $1,444.62,” had already been charged against the estate in the statement showing a credit balance of $1,734.48. The respondents are right in their contention, and the opinion must be, corrected accordingly. Instead of a credit balance of $1,-970.11, it should be $3,414.73.
(2) That no provision is made in the opinion for the amount of rent dire upon the interest in Lockhart farm to the estate of C. R. Lewis for the years 1922 and 1923. The, respondents are right in this contention also, and the opinion must be corrected accordingly. The rental value is shown to be $2,200 per annum. For the, two- years this would amount to $4,400 and 8 per cent, thereof would be $352, for which the estate is entitled to credit in addition to the credid balance of $3,414.73 above stated. The $3,414.73 should bear interest from May 5, 1921, at 7 per cent, to the date of the circuit decree hereafter to be entered; $176 of the $352 rent, should bear interest from November 1, 1922, to *253the same, date; and the remaining $176 from November 1, 1923.
The appellants ask for a rehearing upon the following grounds:
(1) That, in view of the financial and commercial effects of the World War, raging at the time of the death of Lewis, the surviving partners were justified in not forcing a liquidation of the partnership business at that time, and under the circumstances acted for the best interest of all concerned. This may be true, but at the same, time it is true that they were largely interested in the affairs of the business themselves and acted nO‘ doubt with the intention of protecting that interest as well as that of the Lewis estate. Assuming that their course was justifiable, they took it with the legal consequence of being held responsible, not only for losses, but for profits made, in addition to the then value of the assets. There has been no effort to charge them with the profits of the going concern or of the farming operations. We are satisfied that the opinion meets the justice of the case.
(2) That Exhibit T criticised in the opinion, was made up on a different basis from the statement of December 31, 1914, in that in the December statement the inventory of the stock of goods was based upon 100 per cent, of the cost of the goods and Exhibit T was not. An examination of the record shows that Exhibit T was accompanied by the December statement, and the credit balance of $2,079.90, based upon the inventory then taking at 100 per cent, appearing in the December statement, was the initial entry in Exhibit T.
(3) Other matters which were carefully considered in the original opinion.
It is accordingly ordered that- the opinion heretofore filed be, corrected in the particulars hereinbefore stated, that the petitions for a rehearing be dismissed, and that the orders, staying the remittitur be revoked.