Fitzsimmons v. Robb
Fitzsimmons v. Robb
Opinion of the Court
We find no error in this record that requires reversal or modification of the decree dismissing the bill at plaintiff’s costs. The decree is the logical sequence of the facts properly found
As recited in tiie seventh specification his general conclusion of law is as follows : “ Having found that there was no general partnership as between themselves, existing between the plaintiff and defendant, and that the arrangement was that Mr. Fitzsimmons was to receive and retain all fees from, the civil business, and Mr. Robb all fees from the criminal business, and that each has received and retained the fees according to the agreement, there is nothing to account for and the bill must be dismissed.”
This controlling conclusion is so clearly correct that further comment is unnecessary.
Neither of the specifications of error is sustained. On the facts properly found by the learned trial judge, the decree is affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James Fitzsimmons v. John S. Robb
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Equity—Findings of fact—Partnership—Attorneys at law—Accounting. On a bill in equity by one attorney at law against another attorney at law for an accounting under an alleged partnership agreement, the Supreme Court will not reverse the finding of the trial judge based on sufficient evidence, to the effect that no general partnership existed as between the parties, but that the plaintiff was to receive and retain all fees from civil cases, and the defendant all fees from criminal cases. There having been no general partnership between the parties, but merely an arrangement that one should receive and retain the fees from civil cases, and the other those from the criminal business, and this having been done, there is no occasion for an accounting.