Matthews v. Adams

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant and appellee were owners and partners in the publication of a weekly newspaper called the “ Herald and Torchlight,” at Hagerstown, Maryland. There were no written articles of partnership, but at the time of the purchase of the property and business for $7,025, each partner contributed the sum of $1,512.50 in cash and ¹⁴⁴ raised the residue by a mortgage on the property purchased. The profits and losses in the business they were to share equally.

Shortly after the purchase of the paper in 1885, the appellant being in the employment of the United States Government as Special Examiner of the Pension Office, it was agreed that a local editor should be employed to represent him in the management ‘of the paper, and whose salary was to be charged against the appellant’s share of the profits. On the — day of December, 1889, the appellee was appointed doorkeeper of the United States House of Representatives, and both partners being then absent from the business, it was further agreed that the management and conduct of the paper was to be placed in the hands of a Mr. Biggs, of Hagerstown, and this was accordingly done. The business as thus conducted not being successful, the expenditures exceeding the receipts, the plant, good will and establishment of the paper was sold by agreement on the 18th of September, 1891, for the sum of $6,500, Messrs. Matthews and Adams reserving all accounts and credits that were due to the firm on the day of sale.

And on the 3rd of March, 1892, the appellant filed this bill of complaint for a dissolution of the partnership, a receiver, an accounting and injunction. The case was submitted on bill, answer and exhibits, and a decree was passed appointing Messrs. Armstrong and McComas as receivers. And the questions here for consideration arise upon exceptions to the correctness of the auditor’s account distributing the funds collected by the receivers.

The first account upon the report of the receivers charged them with the sum of $2,121.34, and after an allowance for 'commissions and expenses, distributes the residue to the payment of, the firm’s indebtedness, including the claim of the appellee for $1,191.74, advanced the firm beyond his share of capital, and there being a balance of $441, it was distributed equally to the partners. To this account exceptions were filed, but the account was ratified and confirmed, except as to the allowance of the appellee’s claim. ¹⁴⁵ The exception to the distribution of the residue of the partnership funds, after the payment of