Ramon v. Ramon
| Decision Date | 17 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8053.) |
| Citation | 10 S.W.2d 584 |
| Parties | RAMON v. RAMON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cameron County; A. M. Kent, Judge.
Suit by Matias Ramon and others against Eulalie Ramon. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
E. T. Yates, of Brownsville, for appellant.
H. B. Galbraith, of Brownsville, and Thos. G. Patteson, of Cooper, for appellees.
Matias Ramon, Manuella Ramon, Refugio Ramon, and Ruperto Ramon instituted this suit against appellant, Eulalie Ramon, to compel a sale and division of certain property belonging to a parnership which consisted of Francisco Ramon, deceased husband of appellant, and Matias Ramon, in the grocery and feedstuff business in Brownsville. The property was alleged to consist of lot 1, block 12, city of Brownsville, an automobile, a stock of groceries and goods of various kinds, and notes and accounts. It was alleged that the partnership was indebted in the sum of $1,000. The cause was submitted to a jury on special issues, and on the answers judgment was rendered vesting the title to the lot in the partnership composed of Matias Ramon and Francisco Ramon, one-half in each partner; that out of the Francisco Ramon half Eulalie Ramon had ten-sixteenths interest, Matias Ramon one-sixth interest, Manuella Ramon a one-sixth interest, Refugio Ramon a one-eighteenth interest, and Ruperto Ramon a one-eighteenth interest; that the whole lot was incumbered with a debt for part of the purchase money in the sum of $185. The judgment permitted improvements put on the lot by Matias Ramon and Eulalie Ramon to be removed from the land before it was sold. It was also decreed that a half interest owned jointly by Matias Ramon, Eulalie Ramon, and the other parties named was not subject to partition, and that the half interest is subject to a debt due Eulalie Ramon, and the other half interest is subject to a debt in favor of said Eulalie; and the one-half interest belonging to the heirs of Francisco Ramon was subject to a debt in favor of Matias Ramon. The personal property was divided equally between Matias Ramon and Eulalie Ramon. It was also decreed that the land was not susceptible of a fair and equitable division, and should be sold for partition and payment of debts due on it. Matias Ramon was placed in possession of the business to wind it up and liquidate the indebtedness of the partnership.
The jury found that a partnership in the grocery business was formed between Matias and Francisco Ramon, and that each contributed equally to the cost of initiating and conducting the business; that, after the initial expenditure, Matias contributed $7 to the business; that the lot was the property of Francisco and Matias Ramon; and that $488 out of the funds of Francisco and Matias were paid on the lot.
The facts sustain the findings of the jury as well as those found by the trial judge from uncontroverted testimony, as set out in the judgment. Francisco went into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waddell v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
...57 S.W.2d 75, 89 A.L.R. 571; 32 Texas Jurisprudence, 487-505; Altgelt v. Alamo National Bank, 98 Tex. 252, 83 S.W. 6; Ramon v. Ramon, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 584; Diamond v. Gust, Tex.Civ.App., 206 S.W. 366; Moore v. Steele, 67 Tex. 435, 3 S.W. 448; Oliphant v. Markham, 79 Tex. 543, 15 S.W.......
-
Bahr v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...571; Bright v. Morrow, Tex. Civ.App., 225 S.W. 580; Colorado River Syndicate v. Alexander, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 586; Ramon v. Ramon, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 584; Sherk v. First Natl. Bank, Tex.Com.App., 206 S.W. 507; Diamond v. Gust, Tex.Civ.App., 206 S.W. 366. Neither Frank's estate, nor......
-
Humphrey v. Bullock
...Wharf, supra. It appears that Texas courts have operated under this latter doctrine. See Miller v. Howell, supra; Ramon v. Ramon, 10 S.W.2d 584 (Tex.Civ.App.1928, writ ref'd). The problem with the American rule was that where, as here, the partnership agreement provided for the continuation......
-
McLean v. Hargrove
...right to an accounting and to the amount of the decedent's interest, if any, in the firm after liquidation and settlement. Ramon v. Ramon, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 584. In the case before us the sale was made after the partnership, if any, was dissolved by the death of Thomas C. McLean, ther......