Court Opinion

ID: 5195725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-06 15:42:56.924079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:27:04.554329
License: Public Domain

Ingraham, J. (dissenting in part):
I concur with Hr. Justice Hatch, except so far as to affirm the order granting an allowance to the defendant James Slater. The whole litigation resulted from the claim of James Slater that he, as surviving partner, was entitled to the continued use of the firm name of J. & J. Slater and to continue the business of that firm as survivor. He has been defeated in his claim, and the advantageous settlement has resulted from such defeat. Under such circumstances the costs of the litigation made necessary by the unfounded claim of James Slater should not be paid for out of the copartnership property. The fact that he avoided the liability for costs is no reason why he should be granted an extra allowance for the services rendered by his counsel in asserting his claim.
I think, therefore, that the order should be modified by affirming the allowance to the plaintiffs, and denying the motion of James Slater for the allowance, with ten dollars costs and disbursements of this appeal to be paid to the appellants by James Slater.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.