{
  "id": 5404411,
  "name": "Charles A. Nowak, Appellant, v. Clarence H. Geist, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nowak v. Geist",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,707",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 305"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 245,
    "char_count": 3820,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "27bbe9b15c3cdaf77fbe88233c32808d69c409f54ad76bcc1553de9a45f3c047",
    "simhash": "1:c877ebb278292498",
    "word_count": 627
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles A. Nowak, Appellant, v. Clarence H. Geist, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Partnership, \u00a7 61*\u2014when franchises deemed to be property of. On a bill for a partnership accounting, where one of the questions to be determined was whether certain franchises were included in the partnership agreement of the parties, or whether they were to be regarded as the individual property of the defendant, held that when consideration was given to the time, manner and circumstances under which such franchises were acquired, it might reasonably be held that the acquirement of them inured to the benefit of the partnership.\n3. Partnership, \u00a7 337*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show dissolution of. On a bill for a partnership accounting, where one of the main questions involved was whether or not the partners had agreed to dissolve as of a certain date and to permit the defendant to deal with a certain option contract free of the interest of the complainant, evidence held sufficient to show that the partnership was dissolved at the time in question.\n4. Partnership, \u00a7 422*\u2014when accounting not allowed beyond time of alleged dissolution. On k bill for a partnership accounting, where one of the principal questions involved was whether the accounting should have been excluded beyond a certain date, or in any event beyond the date at which the hill alleged that a dissolution took place, and where it appeared that the bill sought a partnership accounting solely, and was not predicated on any fraudulent or deceitful conduct on the part _of the defendant, held that although there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that such accounting should have been had as of the earlier date, it was clear that it should not have been extended beyond the date at which the bill alleged that a dissolution had taken place.\n5. Partnership, \u00a7 61*\u2014what not considered property of. Property acquired after the dissolution of a partnership hut before the affairs of the dissolved corporation have been wound up is not necessarily to be considered as partnership property, even though the partner acquiring it has continued to carry on the business of the dissolved firm without the consent of his late partners.\n6. Partnership, \u00a7 410 \u2014what is extent of liability of partner to copartners for property of in his possession. Where a bill merely seeks a partnership accounting as between partners, each partner is deemed to be a debtor to the others to the extent of the partnership property under his possession or control at the time of the dissolution of the partnership.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Angus Roy Shannon and Chauncey M. Millar, for appellant.",
      "Walter L. Fisher and Stephen A. Day, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles A. Nowak, Appellant, v. Clarence H. Geist, Appellee.\nGen. No. 22,707.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Partnership, \u00a7 52 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show existence of. On a bill for an accounting, where it was alleged that a copartnership existed between the parties for the purpose of securing, selling, financing and disposing of public utility franchises, evidence held sufficient to show that the parties, following the agreement in question, had transacted a partnership business as alleged.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas Taylor, Jr, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Charles A. Nowak, complainant, against Clarence H. Geist, defendant, for a partnership accounting. From a judgment in favor of complainant for $912.50, complainant appeals.\nAngus Roy Shannon and Chauncey M. Millar, for appellant.\nWalter L. Fisher and Stephen A. Day, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 333,
  "last_page_order": 334
}