Joseph P. Bradley, Gunnell v. Bird — Opinion of the Court
“ The error of the auditor consists in not charging Gunnell with the capital contributed by the partners and placed in his hands, and not crediting him with the cost of the lumber originally contributed by himself.Being the active managing partner, it is plain that he should be charged with—He received these amounts, and he should be charged with them. ”
Joseph P. Bradley, Gunnell v. Bird — Opinion of the Court
“ The parties were unable to agree upon a settlement of the partnership accounts, and Bird and Hepburn filed their bill in August, 1850, against Gunnell to obtain an adjustment. After answer an auditor was appointed, who reported in August, 1852, that Gunnell was indebted to Bird and Hepburn in the sum of $3001.56, with interest from the 1st of May, 1849, the time of the dissolution of the partnership. ”
Joseph P. Bradley, Gunnell v. Bird — Opinion of the Court
“ Rule No. 56, regulating equity proceedings, provides in such case that if no cause to the contrary be shown by next rule-day, 'the suit shall stand revived, as of course.' The subpoena was served in June, 1859. No answer was made by the defendant until October following, and so the suit stood revived on the first Monday of August at latest. ”
