Shulsinger v. Maloney

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Shulsinger v. Maloney

38 So. 581, 114 La. 846, 1905 La. LEXIS 551

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 24, 1905

DocketNo. 15,526

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 So. 581 (Shulsinger v. Maloney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shulsinger v. Maloney, 38 So. 581, 114 La. 846, 1905 La. LEXIS 551 (La. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PROVOSTY, J.

The plaintiff and the defendant conducted a turf exchange or poolroom business for 21 months under a written contract of partnership. Plaintiff was to get 25 per cent, of the net profits, and defendant 75 per cent. The accounts were [847]*847closely watched, and kept hy one man representing plaintiff and another representing defendant. At the end of every month a settlement was made for the month, and defendant paid plaintiff his 25 per cent, of the net profits. The payments were not always made hy defendant, hut he admits that he made some of them; that he knew the manner or basis on which the settlements were being made.

After the partnership had been dissolved, and when the parties came to make the settlement for the last month, defendant contended that he had discovered that an error had been made in all the settlements, by which the share of another person in the business, amounting to 15 per cent, of the net profits of the business, had been paid out of his, defendant’s, 75 per cent., instead of being charged to the partnership account.

Much stronger evidence than defendant has adduced would be required to make the courts credit the contention.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PROVOSTY, J.

The plaintiff and the defendant conducted a turf exchange or poolroom business for 21 months under a written contract of partnership. Plaintiff was to get 25 per cent, of the net profits, and defendant 75 per cent. The accounts were [847]*847closely watched, and kept hy one man representing plaintiff and another representing defendant. At the end of every month a settlement was made for the month, and defendant paid plaintiff his 25 per cent, of the net profits. The payments were not always made hy defendant, hut he admits that he made some of them; that he knew the manner or basis on which the settlements were being made.

After the partnership had been dissolved, and when the parties came to make the settlement for the last month, defendant contended that he had discovered that an error had been made in all the settlements, by which the share of another person in the business, amounting to 15 per cent, of the net profits of the business, had been paid out of his, defendant’s, 75 per cent., instead of being charged to the partnership account.

Much stronger evidence than defendant has adduced would be required to make the courts credit the contention.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 So. 581, 114 La. 846, 1905 La. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shulsinger-v-maloney-la-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack