Channon v. Stewart

Illinois Supreme Court

Channon v. Stewart

103 Ill. 541, 1882 Ill. LEXIS 209

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 103 Ill. 541 (Channon v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Channon v. Stewart, 103 Ill. 541, 1882 Ill. LEXIS 209 (Ill. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is insisted that a court of chancery has not jurisdiction in this case. It is said- appellee was not a partner with appellants, and hence the case does not fall under the head of accounts between partners, and that there is not any such complication of accounts as might otherwise call for the intervention of a court of chancery. It is true appellee was not a partner with appellants, but to ascertain his true compensation it is necessary to adjust the accounts of the partnership of appellants, for the amount of the net profits of that business must be ascertained before the true amount of the compensation of appellee can be fixed. Every reason for the adjustment of the accounts between partners, in a court of chancery, applies with equal force in this case, and we think the subject matter is a fit subject for a court of chancery.

As to the merits of this controversy, after a careful examination of the record we are not convinced that any error has been committed by the court by which any wrong has been done to appellants. The controversy relates chiefly to questions of fact. A discussion of the items in detail could subserve no useful purpose. We content ourselves in saying that we find no cause for disturbing the decree.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is insisted that a court of chancery has not jurisdiction in this case. It is said- appellee was not a partner with appellants, and hence the case does not fall under the head of accounts between partners, and that there is not any such complication of accounts as might otherwise call for the intervention of a court of chancery. It is true appellee was not a partner with appellants, but to ascertain his true compensation it is necessary to adjust the accounts of the partnership of appellants, for the amount of the net profits of that business must be ascertained before the true amount of the compensation of appellee can be fixed. Every reason for the adjustment of the accounts between partners, in a court of chancery, applies with equal force in this case, and we think the subject matter is a fit subject for a court of chancery.

As to the merits of this controversy, after a careful examination of the record we are not convinced that any error has been committed by the court by which any wrong has been done to appellants. The controversy relates chiefly to questions of fact. A discussion of the items in detail could subserve no useful purpose. We content ourselves in saying that we find no cause for disturbing the decree.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 Ill. 541, 1882 Ill. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/channon-v-stewart-ill-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack