Court Opinion

ID: 6908206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 22:04:08.328573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:26.976709
License: Public Domain

Rehearing denied April 15, 1924.
On Petition for Rehearing.
COSHOW, J.
The defendant petitions for rehearing insisting that there is no evidence to support the finding of the Circuit Court to the effect that the defendant assumed all the indebtedness against the partnership property excepting the indebtedness owing to the plaintiff. Defendant insists that the bonds represented indebtedness against the property; that inasmuch as he procured and surrendered for cancellation two thirds of that indebtedness and the plaintiff one third, and there were not sufficient assets to pay the indebtedness, defendant was entitled to two thirds of the assets. This argument is fallacious in this, the investment of both parties was represented largely by the bonds. When they purchased the property and formed the partnership the lien of the bonds became merged in the legal title. The plaintiff, Shores, paid to the defendant a specified sum in order to equalize his investment in the property with defendant Hollister’s investment. They thereby became equal owners of the property, whether the property be considered bonds or the legal title to the real property. When the sale was made the property itself was sold. The bonds were not sold. They were surrendered for cancellation without any other consideration than the price re*333ceived for the real property. This conclusively shows that both parties treated the bonds as having been merged in the title to the real property. The plaintiff and defendant were equal partners. “It is so nominated in the bond.” “That the parties of the first part (plaintiff and defendant) hereto have put into said property an equal amount and each own an equal interest therein,” is the language of the contract between them.
After a careful and painstaking re-examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that the learned Circuit Court was correct, as is shown by the following statements:
Statement of partnership account:
Net receipt from sale of partnership property ................................$16,385.32
Net expenses paid by plaintiff, Shores $1527.00
Net expenses paid by defendant Hollister $2296.42
Total expenses of partnership............ 3,823.42
Amount to be divided....................$12,561.90
The plaintiff Shores received from partnership ................................$ 5,701.50
Deduct net amount paid by him as expenses of partnership ...................... 1,527.00
Net receipts of Shores...................$ 4,174.50
The defendant Hollister received from partnership .............................$10,683.82
Deduct amount paid by him as expenses of partnership ......................... 2,296.42
Net receipt of Hollister..................$ 8,387.40
Defendant Hollister’s account:
Entitled to one half of net sale price......$ 6,280.95
He received net.......................... 8,387.40
Excess ..................................$ 2,106.45
*334Plaintiff Shores’ Account:
Entitled to one half of net sale price......$6,280.95
He received net.......................... 4,174.50
Deficit ..................................$ 2,106.45
If the defendant Hollister pays to the plaintiff Shores $2,106.45, they will then each have from the proceeds of the sale of the property in which they owned an equal interest the same amount, to wit, $6,280.95.
Defendant’s petition for rehearing is largely devoted to items included in the settlement at or before the partnership was formed. At the trial defendant claimed that settlement to be final and conclusive on both parties. The court adopted defendant’s position. He cannot now complain of the court’s action on that behalf.
The decree of the learned Circuit Court is correct. Our former opinion is adhered to.
The petition for a rehearing is denied.
Rehearing Denied.
McBride, C. J., and Burnett and Rand, JJ., concur.