McMahill v. Jenkins
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from, the Lincoln Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. The facts in this case are similar to those in Pomeroy v. Burton, 57 Mo. 531, and Watts v. Acller, 29 N. E. Rep. 131. Appellant makes no pretense that there was any fraud or error in the settlement, institutes no proceeding to set it aside, but contents himself with denying the settlement.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Lincoln Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. The facts in this case are similar to those in Pomeroy v. Burton, 57 Mo. 531, and Watts v. Acller, 29 N. E. Rep. 131. Appellant makes no pretense that there was any fraud or error in the settlement, institutes no proceeding to set it aside, but contents himself with denying the settlement. Even if the testimony were conflicting on this question of fact, this court should defer to the action of the trial court, who had the witnesses before it, and could see their demeanor. Taylor v. Cayce, 97 Mo. 249; Cox v. Esteb, 68 Id. 114;…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
This was a bill in equity for an accounting and settlement of partnership affairs. The partnership had been dissolved by mutual consent before the institution of the suit. The answer was an admission of the former existence of the partnership and dissolution, but averred a full and final settlement of its affairs between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant took the affirmative to prove the issue of settlement between the partners. The court, after hearing the evidence, found the issue for the defendant, and we are asked to review this finding.
Partnership: bill por accounting and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cleveland v. BatemanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1915
- Thornton v. KaufmanMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Ham v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Anderson v. AndersonUtah Supreme Court · 1902
- Anderson v. AndersonUtah Supreme Court · 1902