HARRY R. LEEDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN LEVEY, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the judgment should be affirmed with a modification to allow a credit, reducing the total amount awarded.
Leeds obtained a judgment against Levey. The trial court calculated charges and credits between the parties, treating it similarly to a partnership ac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM:
The judgment in this case for $62,-419.06 plus interest in favor of Leeds against Levey is affirmed except .that we conclude that Leeds' judgment against Levey should be for $53,022.93. We arrive at this adjustment because of a credit to be allowed Levey and out of reconstruction of the final computation.
We accept the trial court’s computation of a charge against Levey of $117,-942.01 and a charge of $6,896.12 (money received) against Leeds. (This is not a true partnership case but the same rules of accounting would be applicable here). We find the $117,942.01 figure should be reduced by a $5,000 credit for an amount paid by Levey to Perma Stamp Products. See Godbey & Sons Const. Co. v. Deane (1952) 39 Cal.2d 429, 246 P. 2d 946.
So we conclude that the “partners” accounts with the “partnership” were $112,942.01 (drawn by Levey) and $6,-896.12 (drawn by Leeds) or a total of $119,838.13. Thus Leeds is entitled to one-half of the total, which is $59,919.-06, less $6,896.12 already received, leaving a net of $53,022.93 due Leeds by Levey.
With the foregoing adjustments we find no reversible error in the judgment.
Remanded for modification in accordance with the foregoing. Appellant shall have one-half his costs on the appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Luben Indus., Inc. v. United States, 707 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1983)
-
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. GAF Corp. & Douglas M. Costle, 594 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
20TH Century Mfg. Co. v. The United States, 444 F.2d 1109 (Ct. Cl. 1971)