GROAT
v.
O'HARE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court reversed a lower court's judgment in a partnership accounting dispute between Groat and O'Hare, holding that the court had improperly credited O'Hare with $2,926.20 in items from Schedule D without sufficient proof and failed to properly account for $5,600 in certificates O'Hare received from the Evans Concrete Company. The Court remanded the case to allow the parties to present additional evidence on these disputed accounts before the auditor.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief . Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
We are not satisfied from the evidence that the court below was right in directing the auditor, in stating the account of the partnership, to credit O’Hare with $2926.20, for items set out in Schedule D, annexed to the first report. It is clear to us that the items, amounting in the aggregate to $1650, for hire of horse and buggy, are not proven, but it is impossible, from the. case as it now stands, to determine what amount, if any, should be allowed for these and the other claims in that schedule.
We think, also, that the parties should be permitted to produce further evidence in respect to the certificates amounting to $5600, which O’Hare, on his cross-examination before the auditor under the reference from the general term, admits he received from the Evans Concrete Company. It is clear that he" should be now charged with this amount, unless it has already been included in the accounts as stated by the auditor. It is impossible to determine from, the case as it is now presented whether he has been so charged or not.
We find no other errors in the action of the court below. The decree is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to permit the parties, if they desire, to take further testimony in respect to the items of charge by O’Hare, as stated in Schedule D, and the certificates received by O’Hare from the Evans Concrete Company, and for such further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion, as shall seem to be necessary.
Bevei sed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hanover Nat'l Bank of N.Y. v. Suddath, 215 U.S. 110 (U.S. 1909)…of dealings, the customer incurred new indebtedness to the bank, but as it did not appear that the money was loaned or debt created, on the faith of the deposit, of the deed, the bank’s claim of a lien thereon was denied. Bank of Montreal v. White, 154 U. S. 660, is also a pertinent decision. Without elaborating the issues which'were there involved, it suffices to say- that in an action to recover upon a promissory note, in order to escape the' contention that it was not an innocent holder the bank contende…
-
Goggin v. Bank of Am. Nat. Tr. & Sav. Ass'n, 183 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1950)…32 L.Ed. 934; Berry v. Bank of Bakersfield, 1918, 177 Cal. 206, 170 P. 415; (c) Where the property consisted of commercial paper placed with a bank solely for discount and credit [and the bank refused to discount], Bank of Montreal v. White, 1880, 154 U.S. 660, 14 [*326] S.Ct. 1191, 26 L.Ed. 307; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Suddath, 1909, 215 U.S. 110, 30 S.Ct. 58, 54 L.Ed. 115; (d) Where the property consisted of money received by a bank, for a particular purpose [and not subject therefore to a right of off-se…