Court Opinion

ID: 9562948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:35:21.310169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:37.606834
License: Public Domain

Gordon, J.,
dissenting.
The majority overlooks what was proved and what was not proved in this case.
The partnership books of Circle Service Station showed that before the transactions in question, D. D. Jones and his two sons each owned a one-third interest in the partnership. The books also showed that D. D. Jones withdrew partnership funds totaling $10,932.77 and charged the sons’ capital accounts with those withdrawals. As a result of those transactions, the sons’ interests in the partnership were diluted.
The verity imported by the partnership books is that D. D. Jones withdrew funds and charged them to his sons’ capital accounts, not *694that he had the right to make such withdrawals. That being so, Miss Revere had the burden of proving that D. D. Jones had the right to charge his sons for the sums he withdrew.
Miss Revere did not prove that D. D. Jones had the right to charge his sons for the sums he withdrew. She merely testified that D. D. Jones had said this “was about the only way he would ever get the money that he had advanced the boys”.
The sons testified that they had not received any of the funds withdrawn by their father and charged to their accounts. By a bootstrapping operation, the majority decides the case in Miss Revere’s favor by ignoring the sons’ testimony on the ground that it was not corroborated. But with or without their testimony, Miss Revere did not bear her burden of proving that D. D. Jones had the right to charge his sons’ accounts for the sums he withdrew. So whether or not the sons’ testimony was corroborated is quite beside the point. Ballard v. Cox, 191 Va. 654, 663, 62 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1950).
If the holding in this case were limited to the case of ungrateful sons, perhaps no great harm would be done. But under this holding surviving partners will be precluded from challenging entries made by a deceased partner, unless their testimony is corroborated, even though those entries are prima facie improper.
Eggleston, C.J., and Carrico, J., join in dissent.