Constas v. Gregoris, 192 Ill. App. 376 (1915)

April 26, 1915 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 20,297
192 Ill. App. 376
John H. Constas, Appellee, v. Peter Gregoris, Appellant

John H. Constas, Appellee, v. Peter Gregoris, Appellant.

Gen. No. 20,297.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Partnership, § 371 * —when equity has jurisdiction over dissolution and accounting. A dispute between partners concerning the dissolution of partnership and an accounting forms the proper basis for the exercise of equity jurisdiction.

2. Equity, § 23*—when jurisdiction retained. Where a court of equity acquires jurisdiction for one purpose it will retain it for all purposes necessary to complete justice, although such retention requires that some matters be passed upon which would not otherwise be cognizable in that court.

3. Equity, § 23*—when legal questions determined. Where a court of equity acquires jurisdiction for the purpose of correcting *377a mistake in the terms of a promissory note, it may retain jurisdiction for the purpose of ascertaining the amount due and enforcing its payment, although such ascertainment and enforcement of themselves involve purely legal questions.

*376(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 26, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by John Hi. Constas against Peter Gregoris involving the dissolution of a partnership and an accounting. From a decree finding that a note signed by the complainant and payable to the defendant had been fully paid prior to the recovery of a judgment thereon, and enjoining the collection of such judgment, defendant appeals.

James D. Power, for appellant.

Grover C. Niemeyer, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

*3774. Cancellation of instruments, § 37 * -—when note ordered surrendered for cancellation. Where a court of equity acquires jurisdiction over a proceeding for the dissolution of partnership and an accounting, and finds that a judgment note signed by one of the parties and payable to the other, was agreed to he paid out of the complainant’s share of the profits of the business and had been in fact paid or satisfied in an accounting before judgment had been entered upon it at the suit of the defendant, it is within the jurisdiction of the court to enjoin the defendant perpetually from collecting or attempting to collect the same or the judgment entered upon it and to order, the defendant to deliver it up to the court for cancellation.

5. Equity, § 25*—when jurisdiction not lost 6y agreement of parties pendente lite. Where a court of equity acquires jurisdiction over a proceeding involving the dissolution of partnership and an accounting, the jurisdiction of the court to enjoin the collection of the judgment entered upon a note which the court found had been fully paid was not affected by an agreement between the parties, entered into after the coming in of the master’s report, to dissolve the partnership and settle all other matters in dispute between them except the note in question and the judgment thereon.