PIZA HERMANOS
v.
CALDENTEY
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.
Piza Hermanos, who employed the appellee as a partner at a monthly salary plus ten percent of net profits, disputed the accounting upon his departure from the firm, particularly regarding the valuation of estate property and unharvested crops. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the estate should be valued at $80,000 rather than its cost of $20,584.67, and that the appellee was entitled to his proportional share of the profits from both the estate appreciation and the crops, rejecting arguments that would have required the Court to reconsider settled questions of fact regarding admitted accounting principles.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit by the appellee to recover the sum alleged by him to be due upon a correct account between the defendants and himself. The facts as found are that the appellee was employed by the defendants, copartners, at á monthly salary and ten per cent, of the net profits, to be credited in. his private account; that after about seven years and a half he left the firm on March 11, 1910; that the points of difference as to accounting concern the valuation of an estate bought by the firm and of some unharvested, and unsold crops. The firm credited the estate at cost, $20,584.67, but the courts below found that it was worth $80,000, charged the difference, $59,415.33, as profit, and credited the appellee with $5941.53. - They likewise found that the profit on the crops was much greater than the appellee’s estimate and therefore allowed him the $2000 claimed in his complaint.
It may be that we should adopt a different rule from that followed by the courts below if the question came here as a pure question of law. But it appears from the opinion of both courts that they found the appellants to have admitted the propriety of charging án increase ip the value of the estate as a profit, so that the question was narrowed to one of amount. The principle being settled in this way it was applied to the unsold crops. We do not go behind these well warranted findings of fact and really there is nothing else before us. The assignment of errors raised some other points, but these were the only matters that were pressed in the final argument or that could have been pressed with any hope of success. It is suggested that if otherwise right the judgment charged the appellants with some items twice over. We do not see it, but if there has been any oversight in this respect our aflxrmance of the judgment will be without prejudice to reopening the account for the single purpose of. correcting errors of calculation if permitted upon application to the Supreme Court.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1964)…ht deem relevant to protect the rights of the petitioners in accord with Maryland law. Recognition of this power of state courts after we affirm their holdings on federal questions is a commonplace occurrence. See, e. g., Piza Hermanos v. Caldentey, 231 U. S. 690, 692 (1914); Fidelity Ins. Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. McClain, 178 U. S. 113, 114 (1900). Nor do we agree that because of the new state question we should vacate the judgment in order to avoid deciding the constitutionality of the trespass statute…
-
De la Rama v. De la Rama, 241 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1916)…conjugal partnership was substantially in accord with-the. method prescribed in the code.’ We disallow the attempt to reopen some questions of detail such as a charge of estimated profits, upon this and other grounds. See Piza Hermanos v. Caldentey, 231 U. S. 690. The only remaining item is charging interest on the judgment from July 5, 1902. But that was the date at which but for the delays of the law the wife would have received her dues, the husband has had the use of the money meanwhile, and we aré not…