Opinion
October 9, 1934.
November 26, 1934.
Equity — Specific performance — Agreement to dissolve partnership — Division of partnership property — Decree — Evidence to support — Appeal.
A decree entered on a bill to enforce specific performance of a written agreement entered into by partners to dissolve the partnership and divide the assets, was on appeal affirmed by the appellate court where the record disclosed ample testimony to sustain the conclusion of the trial court that the decree entered would make an equal division of the partnership property according to the partners' intention.
Argued October 9, 1934.
Before FRAZER, C. J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 239, March T., 1934, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Butler Co., June T., 1932, No. 2, in equity, in case of Ernest F. Kemper v. Melvin T. Patterson. Decree affirmed.
Bill in equity. Before WATSON, P. J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Exceptions to decree nisi dismissed and decree nisi entered as final decree. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, inter alia, was final decree, quoting record.
Zeno F. Henninger, with him Murrin Murrin, for appellant.
Lee McCandless, of Marshall McCandless, for appellee.
Plaintiff and defendant were associated together as partners in conducting an automotive machine and replacement parts business in the City of Butler. An agreement in writing was entered into to dissolve the partnership and divide the assets. A dispute having arisen between the partners as to the division of the firm assets, this bill was filed, and came on for hearing before the late Judge WATSON as chancellor, who, after hearing the parties and their witnesses, found the facts and decreed that defendant, having paid to plaintiff the sum of $2,310.21, is not further obligated except that he should execute and deliver to plaintiff a deed for his interest in the partnership real estate located at the corner of West, North and Bluff Streets in the City of Butler. This decree the chancellor found would make an equal division of the partnership property according to the partners' intention. An examination of the record discloses ample testimony to sustain the court's conclusion: Glenn v. Trees, 276 Pa. 165; Belmont Laboratories v. Heist, 300 Pa. 542.
Decree affirmed, each party to pay one-half of the costs.