Norman v. Hudleston

Citations

• 64 Ill. 11

Syllabus

<p>1. Account—pani/nership—presumption of settlement from sale of one partner to the other. Where it appeared that A & B had been carrying on a partnership business, and that A, after having disposed of his interest, purchased the interest of B, for which he agreed to pay a certain sum: Held, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that it would be presumed that all their former accounts were settled, or at least merged in the new agreement.</p> <p>2. Same—bwrden of proof Where a new partnership was formed between A and B, on bill for an account by A against B, it was alleged that B had agreed with A that the new firm was to make payment to the creditors of the prior firm of which A was a member. The testimony of A and B was contradictory as to this agreement, and there was no corroborating proof of either: Held, that the burden of proof was on A to establish this fact.</p> <p>3. Answer in chancery—defendant not entitled to affirmative relief on. On bill for a partnership account, and to enjoin a suit at law brought to recover the price agreed to be paid by complainant for the sale of his part ner’s interest in the business, the defendant answered, but filed no cross-bill seeking affirmative relief, and the court enjoined the suit at law, and rendered a decree in favor of defendant in the chancery suit for a part of the price agreed to be paid for his interest: Held, that the relief could not be granted the defendant, for want of a cross-bill.</p>