{
  "id": 5258420,
  "name": "Thomas Laswell v. Silas W. Robbins",
  "name_abbreviation": "Laswell v. Robbins",
  "decision_date": "1866-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "220",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. 209"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5248477
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0365-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 836,
    "char_count": 21779,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.3484192329323406e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8745903718711013
    },
    "sha256": "d6ca07ae5a5e4c3ef19fea5d6bb52f5e486fdd5c325b6fb9f9e236c55e65feb9",
    "simhash": "1:7a76b597e115efd0",
    "word_count": 3510
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:26.969141+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas Laswell v. Silas W. Robbins."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Walker\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis record presents the question whether the account as stated between the parties is, correct, and whether the master should have heard other and further evidence than that in the record at the time the reference was made. On examining the evidence in the case, we are satisfied that the master has, in stating the account, inadvertently allowed items against plaintiff in error a second time. So far as we can see, the two charges against plaintiff in error for ninety-five dollars paid to Francis Day are one and the same transaction. His deposition was twice taken. In the first, he says, that about the 28th of February, 1856, he sold to plaintiff in error seven head of cattle, and he then said he must see Robbins about getting the money and said that he and defendant in error were buying cattle in partnership. He, however, in this deposition, states no price at which the cattle were sold. In his second deposition he states that, he thinks, in February, 1856, he sold plaintiff in error seven head of cattle for ninety-five dollars, and he identifies an order drawn by plaintiff in error on defendant in error for that sum and dated on the 29th of February, 1856, and an order appears in the record, dated on the 28tli of February, 1856, for the same amount, with a memorandum of several cattle, seven in all, appearing to have been indorsed upon it. These several items of evidence would seem to prove but one transaction, and the master we think erred in treating it as two.\nInasmuch as the case will have to be again referred to a master, and as the proof may then be altogether changed or greatly modified, we deem it unnecessary to examine whether the various items of the account to which objections are interposed are well taken. When the master shall have the whole case before him he will no doubt be enabled to arrive at just conclusions. We find, by looking into the evidence contained in the record, that it is true, as he reports to the court below, that it is on that evidence exceedingly difficult to arrive at satisfactory conclusions. Plaintiff in error having received the partnership property, and being by the terms of the partnership intrusted with its custody, management and disposal, when shown that he received it, he must be charged with its value, and, to discharge himself, he must account for its disposition, and what he has done with the\" proceeds. Any other mode of disposing of the controversey would impose an undue burden upon defendant in error, and would be to reverse the rules governing the statement of accounts. This rule prevails in all trials involving the adjustment of accounts, whether for the sale of goods and chattels, or otherwise. The plaintiff only has to show that the defendant purchased or received the property and its value, and the presumption then arises that he is liable, and he to discharge himself must show payment, set-off or some other legal defense.\nHaving entered into the business of raising, buying and selling stock on the farm upon which he resided, and having made no provision in the partnership articles to commingle his own stock with that of the firm, we can hardly presume that he did, and, if he placed his own stock on the farm, to overcome the presumption that it became partnership property would require the clearest and most satisfactory proof. Until such proof should be adduced, the presumption would he that when he placed it there it was to and did become partnership property, for the value of which the firm would be liable to account to him, but the profit would inure to the firm, and if loss- occurred it would have to be borne by the firm.\nWhen the partnership terminated, plaintiff in error, if he had regarded the duties and obligations of a partner, instead of appropriating the property to his own use, would have made some disposition of it for the benefit of the members of the firm, or would, at least, have taken the necessary steps for a settlement. The presumption would be, until rebutted, that the property at the termination of the partnership belonged to the firm, and, if so, and plaintiff has appropriated it to his own use, he must account for it on the settlement of the affairs of the partnership. It was then in his power to have had clear and satisfactory evidence of the articles and their value on hand at the time the partnership terminated. It would have been attended with but little difficulty, loss of time, or trouble, to have called upon neighbors, to have made an inventory and fixed the value; but, having failed to do so, and defendant in error not having the power to do so, he must establish his claims in the best mode he can, and if, in doing so, he has to prove facts, from which presumptions have to he indulged, which plaintiff in error may think overcharges him, he will have no right to complain if he has failed to provide and preserve the evidence which it was his duty to have obtained.\nIt is urged that the opinion of the court, when the case was previously before it, prevented plaintiff in error from introducing evidence before the master, when he last stated the account. The opinion does require the account to be stated on the evidence then taken and appearing in the record, and it was for the reason that the parties had taken evidence that was proper for that purpose. The court below had found that there had been a partnership; that there had been no accounting between the partners, and decreed that they should account; and referred it to the master to state the account. He did so, and, so far as we can see, plaintiff in error did not offer to produce any evidence which he now proposes to produce. Under such circumstances he has no right to claim now to come in and ask a reversal of the decree, that he may introduce- additional evidence. Had he, before the master, Campbell, offered such proof, and it had been rejected, and the chancellor had refused to refer it back, that he might introduce his evidence before the master, it would have been otherwise.\nBut inasmuch as the decree of the court below will be reversed on other grounds, and the case again referred to a master to state the account, we have concluded to modify the former order, so as to permit both parties to be heard, with any legitimate proof which they may produce on the hearing before the master. The decree of the court below is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to again refer it to a master to state the partnership accounts and not the private accounts between the parties.\nDecree reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Walker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Stuart, Edwards & Brown, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. James C. Conkling, for the defendant in err,or."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas Laswell v. Silas W. Robbins.\n1. Statement op accounts\u2014master\u2019s report. Where the master in chancery, to whom a case has been referred to state an account between partners on evidence in the record, states it incorrectly as evidence in the record shows, it should be referred back to him for correction, and opportunity afforded to the parties to introduce other evidence.\n2. PARTNER\u2014his liability to amount for partnership property. Where a partner had received partnership property, and by the terms of the partnership was intrusted with its custody, management and disposal, he must be charged with its value, and to discharge himself he must account for its disposition, and what he has done with the proceeds.\n3. Same\u2014rule is general. It seems that this rule prevails in all trials involving the adjustment of accounts, whether for the sale of goods and chattels or otherwise.\n4. In such case the one partner only has to show that the other purchased or received the property and its value, and the presumption then arises that he \u2018is liable; and he to discharge himself must show payment, set-off, or some other legal defense.\n5. Mingling the property oe partners\u2014presumptions, evidence. Where L. had entered into the business of raising, buying and selling stock, in partnership with R., on the farm where L. resided, and there being no provision in the partnership articles to commingle the stock of L. with that of the firm, this court cannot presume that he did so; and if he did place his own stock (n the farm, to overcome the presumption that it became partnership property would require the clearest and most satisfactory proof.\n6. Ownership oe 'pbo'E'E\u00edwy\u2014partnership being ended. The presumption would be, until rebutted, that-the property at the termination of a partnership belonged to the firm, and, if so, and one partner appropriates it to his own use he must account for it in the settlement of the affairs of the partnership.\n7. Value oe property in such case\u2014how estimated. In such a case it seems that the proper way would be to call upon neighbors to make an inventory, and fix the value of the property so taken.\n8. And where, in such case, the partner having custody of partnership property appropriates it to his own use, without preserving any evidence as to its value, the other partner must establish his claims in the best mode he can ; and if, in doing so, as he has to prove facts from which presumptions have to be indulged, which the wrong-doing partner may think overcharges him such wrong-doing partner will have no right to complain because he has failed to provide and preserve the evidence which it was his duty to have obtained.\n9. Report oe master\u2014will not support a decree where he misialces the evidence. Where a case had been referred to the master to state a partnership account on the evidence then taken and appearing in the record, it being evidence proper for that purpose, and the master allowed several items against the same party a second time, a decree founded on such a \u2022 eport will be reversed and the order of reference so modified as to permit both parties to be heard with any legitimate proof which they may produce before the master.\nWrit oe Error to the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. E. Y. Rice, Judge, presiding.\nRobbins originally filed his bill in the Sangamon Circuit Court, alleging a partnership, under written agreement, and its extension by parol, and praying a settlement. Laswell denied both allegations, and the court below, on the evidence, decided both in favor of Robbins, and rendered a decree against him for $411.83, that being the sum ascertained by the report of Hr. Campbell, master. Robbins appealed. The action of the court below was sustained, except as to the amount found to be due. For the error in that respect the decree was reversed, with directions that the testimony then taken in this cause be referred to the master, who should therefrom make up a report, showing:\n\u201cFirst, the whole cost of the cattle, hogs and horses purchased by the plaintiff, and which came to the possession of the defendant prior to March 1, 1856, under the agreement of March 1, 1853, and extended and enlarged by the parol assent of the parties to the time first mentioned. Showing, second, the amount of profits derived on the sale of any portion of said property, giving to- the plaintiff an equal half part thereof and to the defendant the other equal half part thereof; and, third, to ascertain the value of the property so purchased by the plaintiff, which was in the possession or control of the defendant at the time of filing this bill, and which he refused to deliver up to the receiver appointed by the Circuit Court, and which inquiry will include the hogs, horses and other like property the said defendant may have disposed of to others without accounting for the sam e to the plaintiff, and for which sums, when ascertained, a decree shall pass in favor of the plaintiff, together with the costs of the suit.\u201d Robbins v. Laswell, 27 Ill. 365.\nIn pursuance of this \u00b0order the report of Mr. Shutt, master, was made in -November, 1864. The essential portions of that report are:\n\u201c First, amount advanced by Robbins to Laswell :\n\u201c Advance on original contract,................. $254 00\n\u201c Ash purchase,............................... 120 70\n\u201c Amount paid Spangler,........................ 177 50\n\u201cShobert,.................................... $90 00\n\u201c George Fagan,.............................. 90 00\n\u201cJosephB. H. Agee,.......................... 115 00\n\u201cFletcher Talbott,............................ 100 00\n\u201c Francis Day,................................ 95 00\n\u201c Josiah Broadwell,............................ 70 00\n\u201cA. Beeves,.................................. 118 50\n\u201c John Shannahan,............................ 444 76\n\u201cThomas Radford,............................ 120 00\n\u201c Thomas Rippon,............................. 295 00\n\u201cXavier Wochner,............................ 60 00\n\u201cPiersonRoll,................................ 570 00\n\u201cWashington Crowder,........................ 60 00\n\u201c John Cavn,................................. 30 00\n\u201c Goodrich Lightfoot,.......................... 247 00\n\u201cJames Tomlinson,........................... 10 00\n\u201cHoses Laswell,.............................. 56 00\n\u201cHenry Jones,............................... 19 00\n\u201c James Claywell,............................. 90 00\n\u201cBalance paid by Robbins to James Claywell for hogs, over and above the Fagan house,......... 116 40\n\u201c Thomas O. Wright,.......................... 30 00\n\u201cJefferson Stone,............................. 151 00\n\u201c Francis Day,............................ 95 00\n\u201cJohn Fagan,................................ 102 00\n\u201c Clawson Lacy,.............................. 30 '00\n\u201c Jeremiah King,............................. 148 00\n\u201c C. C. Blood,................................ 28 00\n\u201cF. Linnard,................................. 7 92\n\u201cEdmund Fry,............................... 45 00\n\u201c G. S. HcKennie,................*............ 42 00\n\u201cL. Carter, ...\"............................... 2125\n\u201c Daniel Little,............................... 9 70\n\u201c John Gardner, Jr.,.......................... 20 00\n\u201cWilliam Jones,.............................. 12 00\n\u201cDanielBroadwell,........................... 14 36\n\u201c Robert Haslett,........................... 100 00\n\u201c H. B. Grubb,............................... $10 00\n\u201c Edward Fry,.....................\u201d........... 50 00\n\u201c Francis Claywell,............................ 87 00\n$4,052 09\n\u201c Second, profits in sales of stock made by Laswell:\n\u201c Sale to Huber of stock, $1,990; profits on said stock sold, as declared by Laswell, $1,200, half of which to Laswell, and half to Bobbins,......... $600 00\n\u201c Sale to Taylor of lot of cattle for $1,500; profits, according to testimony and Laswell\u2019s admission, $600,...................................... 300 00\n\u201c Hogs and cattle sold to William Butler, amounting in the aggregate to $594. According to the admission of Laswell, a profit thereon of one hundred per cent.; cost $287, and a half of which, 143 50\n\u201cSale to George Fagan, $65 ; cost, $32.50; profit, $32.50, half of which,........................ 16 25\n\u201c S. M. Tinsley, hogs, $134.50; cost, $67.25; profit, $67.25, half of which,....................... 33 62\n\u201c Twelve head of cattle, sold at $480 ; cost, $240; profit, $240, half,.......\u2022..................... 120 00\n\u201c Sale of hogs to George Gregory for $203; cost, $101.50; profit, $101.50, half of which,........ 50 75\n' $1,263 92\n\u201c Third, cattle butchered by Laswell and not accounted for to Robbins, and stock Laswell had on hand:\n\u201cValue of 28 head, as estimated by witnesses,---- $650 00\n\u201cValue of colt and heifer given to John Tomlin-son, without accounting to Robbins,............ 63 00\n\u201c Value of three cattle and roan filly given to Jules Ba\u00fales, without accounting to Robbins,........ Ill 00\n\u201c Cattle traded George Fagan and George Ragle, without accounting to Robbins,............... 65 00\n\u201c Cattle on hand and value thereof at date of difficulty\u201456 head at $15 per head,............... 840 00\n\u201c Horses on hand and value thereof at date of difficulty\u201410 head at $75,....................... $750 00\n\u201cHogs on hand and value thereof at date of difficulty\u201420 head at* $5,...................... 100 00\n$2,579 00\n\u201c Total amount in the hands of Laswell not accounted for to Robbins:\n\u201c Amount advanced,........................... $4,052 09\n\u201c Robbins\u2019 half profits on sales,.................. 1,263 92\n\u201cAmount cattle butchered and stock on hand---- 2,579 00\n$7,895 01\n\u201c Fourth, amount received by Robbins from Laswell:\n\u201c On sale Huber cattle,........................ $1,000 00\n\u201c Amount received on Taylor sale,............... 900 00\n\u201c Amount paid on Powell note,................. 300 00\n\u201c John Fagan, house,.......................... 40 00\n\u201c John Fagan, for wood hauling,................ 24 00\n\u201c Oats, $10; stock delivered to him for Robbins, $235,.........................'............. 245 00\n\u201c George Fagan, Jr., 13 loads wood,.............. 20 25\n\u201cAndrew Laswell,............................ 40 00\n\u201c George Gregory paid Robbins,................ 203 00\n\u201c Admission of Robbins,....................... 45 00\n$2,817 25\n\u201c To which is to be added his share of profits on sales,...................................... 1,263 92\n$4,081 17\n\u201c And the balance due by Laswell to Robbins is as follows:\n\u201c Amount of all accounts- against Laswell,........ $7,895 01\n\u201c From which is to be deducted Laswell\u2019s account,. 4,081 17\n$3,813 84\nLaswell excepted to the report; the exceptions were overruled, and the report was approved. He then moved to recommit the case to the master for additional proof, which motion was also overruled and a decree entered for $3,813.84. At the April Term, 1865, Laswell filed a petition asking that the case be again referred to the master. The petition alleges that in the original evidence taken before the master, Laswell offered a paper proved to be in the handwriting of Robbins, which was marked as exhibit C; that in making up said report, that exhibit was not considered by the master, and that the credits to which he is justly entitled by said exhibit amount to about $1,100. The petition continues :\n\u201c 2. In said report petitioner is twice charged for a mare bought of Gr. Fagan, being $90, when he should have been charged only once.\n\u201c 3. Tour petitioner is charged twice with the sum of $95 in said report as being paid to Day, when he should have been charged but once.\n\u201c 4. Robbins by said report is credited with $480, paid to P. Roll, when it is a clear mistake, as the credit should have been given to Laswell. Which mistake if corrected makes a difference of $960 in the master\u2019s report in your petitioner\u2019s favor.\n\u201c5. Tour petitioner is charged with the following sums advanced out of his means to purchase stock for the Glaywell farm, after the new agreement had been made to carry on the farm together, rescinding any old contract, to wit:\n\u201c Shobert, for wagon for Andrew Laswell,....... $90 00\n\u201c Cattle bought of Josiah Broadwell,............ 70.00\n\u201c Roll, for cattle,............................. 480 00\n\u201c Again he is charged for the same stock as driven away from said farm, and included in the cattle butchered and on hand.\n\u201c 6. Tour petitioner is charged by said report: first, for the money which went to purchase the stock said to be on hand and belonging to the old partnership when the bill was filed; and, in the second place, with the value of the cattle; which double charge is neither consistent with justice or equity,, nor could have been in the contemplation of the Supreme Court.\n\u201c 7. Your petitioner states that the charge of one hundred per cent, profit on stock sold, is very-gross injustice to him; that there is no testimony in the case to justify such charge; and if there was testimony to show such profits, it is so extravagant and unreasonable when applied to a continuous trade in cattle for two or-three years, your., petitioner paying all expenses, that it is unworthy of any consideration whatever.\n\u201c 8. In charging this petitioner with $2,576 for cattle butchered and on hand, is the same gross error, sixth above stated. It is a double charge: first* for -the purchase-money of the cattle; and, second, for the value of the - cattle butchered. That all that in equity in any view of the case could be \u00e9harged against him would be the fair profits on the cattle when butchered, or on the cattle on hand; to be estimated at. the time of filing the bill, or when sold or otherwise used. He repeats that the Supreme Court did not contemplate such a double charge.\n\u201c 9. Your petitioner would respectfully submit, that the testimony showing, or tending to show, the value of .stock on hand and butchered, is so vague and uncertain that any report or decree passed upon it could not be relied upon for-reason of the vagueness and uncertainty. It- is also contradictory, as the proof establishes beyond question, that a considerable portion of the stock on hand belonged to petitioner individually, having been raised by him or purchased with his own means. He respectfully suggests, that if the rule laid down, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, of charging him and requiring him to account for all the stock on hand, is the true rule in his case, that, on account of this vague, uncertain and contradictory testimony, this case ought to be again committed to the master, to enable the parties to establish the amount more clearly.\u201d\nThe petition concluded with a prayer that the decree might be opened, and the case again referred to the master to correct any and all mistakes in the report. The court denied the prayer of the petition. The case was brought to this court by Laswell on a writ of error, and he now assigns the following errors:\nJL Overruling the exceptions to the master\u2019s report.\n2. Approving the report of the master.\n3. Refusing to hear further evidence.\n4. Refusing defendant\u2019s motion for a rehearing.\n5. The amount for which decree was rendered.\n6. Entering any decree in favor of complainant.\nMessrs. Stuart, Edwards & Brown, for the plaintiff in error.\nMr. James C. Conkling, for the defendant in err,or."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 220
}