Williams v. Rogers

127 A. 288, 14 Del. Ch. 387, 1925 Del. Ch. LEXIS 37
CourtCourt of Chancery of Delaware
DecidedJanuary 21, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A. 288 (Williams v. Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Rogers, 127 A. 288, 14 Del. Ch. 387, 1925 Del. Ch. LEXIS 37 (Del. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

The Chancellor.

According to the complainant’s own testimony he and the defendant, at the close of the alleged partnership transactions, met and adjusted the partnership accounts; the fact and amount of the loss was ascertained; and the defendant premised to pay the complainant (who had put in all the cash which the business used) his one-half part of the loss. Not only so, but the complainant testifies that the defendant actually paid on account of the loss the sum of $400.

If partners settle their accounts and admit a balance, an action at law will lie to recover such balance. Redden v. Ellis, 4 Harr. 309; Robinson v. Green’s Adm’r., 5 Harr. 115; Martin v. Solomon's Adm’x., 5 Harr. 344. If, therefore, the complainant’s testimony is to be accepted at its full value, he has a remedy at law. Where partners themselves have stated the account, they have done that which generally it is the principal object of the ordinary partnership bill in equity to accomplish. Accordingly it is the rule that in such cases equity will decline to entertain a bill by one partner against another for the balance found by their own stated account to be due. Finley v. Lynn, 6 Cranch, 238, 3 L. Ed. 211; McGehee v. Dougherty, 10 Ala. 863; Jackson v. Powell, 110 Mo. App. 249, 84 S. W. 1132; Taylor v. Shaw, 2 Sim. & S. 12; Endo v. Caleham, Younge & C. Ch. 306. This principle puts the complainant out of court. His bill is really one to collect a balance which by his own statement the defendant, after settling the accounts and striking a balance, admitted to be due and promised to pay. If the complainant’s statement be correct, there is no occasion for the Court of Chancery to intervene in his behalf.

The bill must be dismissed with costs on the complainant. The sole point of view on which my disposition of the case turns is the foregoing one. I decide nothing on the facts in favor of either party.- Questions on the facts are left open to be litigated elsewhere in case either party raises them.

Let a decree be prepared accordingly.

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

Related

Mack v. White
165 A. 150 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A. 288, 14 Del. Ch. 387, 1925 Del. Ch. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-rogers-delch-1925.