Hardisty v. Hardisty

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Richard Hardisty, and John T. Hardisty, the father of the appellees, were co-partners, and carried on a large business at Colling’ton, in Prince George’s County, in this State. The partnership was formed in 1853, and continued until the 10th of July, 1877, when it was dissolved by the death of John T. Hardisty. The deceased partner left a will appointing his wife executrix, and his brother and co-partner, executor, and devising and bequeathing all his real and personal property to his wife during her life, and at her death to he equally divided among his children, who are the appellees, their mother having died.

The estate of the deceased partner was duly settled in the Orphans’ Court of Prince George’s County, and the-sum of $7,693.21, being the amount which remained after the payment of debts, was passed and paid to his widow in accordance with the will, and in the administration accounts there is no notice taken of the testator’s interest in the partnership property. The business ¹⁸⁵ was continued by the appellant, Richard Hardisty, but whether as surviving partner or on his own account does not clearly appear. However, on the 10th August, 1878, he sold the stock of goods and divided the proceeds equally between himself and the widow of his deceased partner — each of them receiving the sum of 82,821.15. A few years after this transaction Mrs. Hardisty died, and it appears that upon proceedings taken for that purpose, the real estate which the firm owned and held as tenants in common was sold.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellees to compel the appellant to account and settle the partnership affairs of the firm of J. T. & R. Hardisty, of which their father and the appellant were the only members. The appellant answered, admitting many of the allegations of the bill, but alleged that upon a proper accounting it would be found that the firm was indebted to him in the sum of $1,746,98. Testimony was taken, when for the first time the appellant produced as the foundation of his claim set out in the answer, the following promissory note: “$2,727.56. Colllnuton, Jan. 1st, 1861.

One day after date I promise to \mj to the order of J. T. and. R. Hardisty, two thousand, seven hundred and twenty-seven ¿Yo dollars, for value received, as witness my hand and seal. (Signed,) John T. Hardisty. [sear. ]” Upon this note were endorsed a number of payments, which amounted to $1,731.68, which is a little more than half of tiie note and interest. The expert accountant, who testified on behalf of the appellant, gives the following testimony in regard to this note and the account of John T. Hardisty, based upon his examination of ¹⁸⁶ the hooks of the firm. “The note is dated January 1st, 1861, for $2727.56, payable by J. T. Hardisty, and is in settlement of an account that had been running since January 1, 1859, between John T. Hardisty and the firm, and is found on page 388 of the ledger; I next see an entry on ledger, page 716, in John T. Hardisty’s account, which reads as follows : To balance on note Jan’y 1, 1870, $-figures erased but which look like $1796.33, but which.

I see by memorandum on the note, but scratched out, $1796.53. I next find it in ledger on page 805, in account of John T. Hardisty under date of July 1, 1877, to balance on note (to date) $2234.57, and that balance has been entered into the accounts as I have made them up.” From the testimony of Mr. Ayers, the expert accountant who testified on behalf-of the appellees, we learn that the note in question appeared in three places on the books of the firm, first, where it is stated to have been given by the deceased partner in settlement of his account to the firm to January 1, 1861. Then on January 1, 1870, it was apparently charged to his account and afterwards erased; “such cancellation,” says the witness, í‘being correct, as the amount is not included in the addition on the ledger.” A part of the note subsequently appears, continues this witness, where J. T. Hardisty is charged with $2234.57. These two witnesses therefore substantially agree as to the facts as they appear from the books of the firm, although they came to very different conclusions, one of them having included and the other excluded the balance claimed to be due on the note .in stating the accounts.

By agreement of