Summary

Samuel Blatchford Chouteau v. Barlow — Opinion of the Court

We do not deem it proper now to indicate any rule of accounting in respect to the lands which were not sold and conveyed by Charles P. Chouteau and Julia Maffitt to parties other than the representatives of Pierre Chouteau, Jr., Sarpy, and Sire, but leave that question to be determined by the circuit court, on full consideration. As to the lands which were sold and conveyed to parties other than such representatives, the liability should be only for the sums actually realized in good faith from the sales. The accounting may include the other remaining assets of the firm, if any.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford Chouteau v. Barlow — Opinion of the Court

The only witness for the plaintiffs who testifies to having seen them, or who states their contents, is Mr. Barlow, one of the plaintiffs. On his direct examination, he says that he saw them in 1858 and 1859, at the time when negotiations for compromise were going on between Pierre Chouteau, Jr., and the executors of Sanford, in regard to the claims of Chouteau against the estate of Sanford for his share of the losses of their New York firm
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford Chouteau v. Barlow — Opinion of the Court

Chouteau's agent in regard to the value of the Minnesota property authorized the inference that there was no charge against it. But however, this may be, Mr. Thompson, at least, was well informed as to its situation. In a letter written October 6, 1859, I mentioned that 'this interest (the Minnesota) had been retained by Mr. Sanford in the transfer between him, Mr. Sarpy, and Mr. Sire, but embarrassed by a very heavy debt.' I don't, however, consider this important. The accounts you ask for are entirely too voluminous to furnish within any reasonable time.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature