Bethel v. Franklin
| Decision Date | 31 October 1874 |
| Citation | 57 Mo. 466 |
| Parties | JOSEPH C. BETHEL, Defendant in Error, v. A. T. FRANKLIN, et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Montgomery Circuit Court.
Davis, Thoroughman and Warren, for Plaintiffs in Error.
Wm. Gatewood, for Defendant in Error.
I. In Russell vs. Grimes, (46 Mo., 410,) suit had been brought for settlement of partnership accounts; referees had reported the amount due the firm, and division had been made of the assets between the partners; being a complete settlement by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Taking the amended answer of defendant to be true, they hold a demand against the partnership firm, which can be adjusted only by a suit in chancery for a settlement between the partners. (Bond vs. Bemis, 55 Mo., 524; Finney vs. Turner, 10 Mo., 208; Field vs. Oliver, 43 Mo., 200; McPherson vs. Week, 30 Mo., 345; Lamb vs. Brolaski, 38 Mo., 51.)
This action was brought in the Montgomery Circuit Court, in the year 1871, to recover the amount due on a promissory note charged to have been executed by the defendants to the plaintiff for the sum of four hundred dollars, bearing date the first day of October, 1860, and payable eleven months after date, with ten per cent interest after the first day of March, 1861.
The defendants appeared to the action and filed an answer to the petition, in which they admitted the execution of the note, and set up matters in avoidance of the action.
The plaintiff demurred to the answer, on the ground that it set up no defense to the action, setting forth in detail the special grounds of demurrer.
The court sustained the demurrer, and the defendants failing to further plead in the action, final judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount named in the note sued on, with interest. The defendants in due time filed their several motions for a new trial and in arrest of the judgment, which being severally overruled by the court, the defendants filed their several exceptions, and have brought the case to this court by writ of error.
The only question presented to this court is, whether the answer of the defendants constituted any defense to the plaintiff's action. If it did, then the demurrer to the answer was improperly sustained and judgment improperly rendered for the plaintiff.
The answer of the defendants is a long one, and is rather confused in its statements, but after the admission of the execution of the note sued on, the answer sets up substantially the following facts in defense: That at the time of and immediately before the execution of the note sued on, the plaintiff and the defendants, Franklin and Clanton, were equal partners in the business of buying and selling goods; that previous to the formation of said partnership, plaintiff and defendant Franklin had been equal partners in said business; that, at the time of the formation of the partnership between plaintiff and the defendants, Franklin and Clanton, the firm composed of plaintiff and defendant Franklin, were the owners of notes and accounts amounting to the aggregate sum of $800, which were, at the time of the entering into the partnership between plaintiff and defendants, Franklin and Clanton, transferred and turned over to the last named firm for collection; that after the firm composed of plaintiff, Franklin and Clanton had been in business for a time, to-wit: on the 1st day of October, 1860, the plaintiff proposed to sell out his interest in the firm and business to defendants Franklin and Clanton, exhibiting to them at the time a statement of the liabilities and assets of the firm, except the goods and merchandise then on hand, and also a list showing the balance due and uncollected on the notes and accounts transferred to said firm by the firm of Bethel and Franklin as aforesaid; the plaintiff then requesting that an invoice should be taken of the goods then on hand, which was taken and made out by the parties, and which amounted to the sum of $1,800; that the notes and accounts of indebtedness belonging to said firm, as per the statement made of them, also amounted to the sum of $1,800; that the uncollected notes and accounts assigned to said firm by the firm of Bethel and Franklin as aforesaid, amounted to the sum of $466.66, and that the liabilities of said firm amounted to the sum of $2.800; that after the invoice of the goods was made, as aforesaid, by and between plaintiff and defendants, Franklin and Clanton, it was agreed between all the parties that they would dissolve their partnership and that plaintiff would sell his entire interest in said partnership and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feurt v. Brown
...between them, one partner may sue his co-partners at law therefor. Buckner v. Rees, 34 Mo. 357; Russell v. Grimes, 46 Mo. 410; Bethel v. Rankin, 57 Mo. 466. Such an action also lies on the express promise evidenced by the note sued on. Crate v. Bininger, 45 N. Y. 545; Venning v. Luckie, 13 ......
-
Ashby v. Shaw
...item unadjusted between partners, can be settled in an action at law. Buckner v. Reis, 34 Mo. 357; Russell v. Grimes, 46 Mo. 410; Bethel v. Franklin, 57 Mo. 466; 41. Pa. St. 102; 56 Pa. St. 183; 30 Mich. 304; Dole v. Thomas, 67 Ind. 570; Story on Part., (7 Ed.) 218. One partner can sue anot......
-
Feurt v. Brown
...between them, one partner may sue his co-partners at law therefor. Buckner v. Rees, 34 Mo. 357; Russell v. Grimes, 46 Mo. 410; Bethel v. Rankin, 57 Mo. 466. Such an also lies on the express promise evidenced bye the note sued on. Crate v. Bininger, 45 N.Y. 545; Venning v. Luckie, 13 East. 7......
-
Chaonia State Bank v. Sollars
...possible failure of title will constitute a valid defense if the title in fact fails. On this point defendant cites such cases as Bethel v. Franklin, 57 Mo. 466, and Benton v. Klein, 42 Mo. 97. The promises made plaintiff's officers to the third party as purchaser, to the effect that it wou......