Fowler v. Johnson, (Nos. 1932, 1992.)

• Decision Date: 17 February 1921
• Docket Number: (Nos. 1932, 1992.)
• Citation: 151 Ga. 122,106 S.E. 90
• Parties: FOWLER. v. JOHNSON. JOHNSON. v. FOWLER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

151 Ga. 122

106 S.E. 90

FOWLER.

v.JOHNSON.

JOHNSON.

v.FOWLER.

(Nos. 1932, 1992.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 17, 1921.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Worth County; R. Eve, Judge.

Action by E. M. Johnson against T. J. Fowler. Judgment for plaintiff, and each party brings error. Affirmed on defendant's bill of exceptions, and plaintiff's cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

Pope & Bennet and Milner & Farkas, all of Albany, and Perry & Williamson, of Sylvester, for plaintiff in error.

Claude Payton, of Albany, and J. H. Tipton, of Sylvester, for defendant in error.

FISH, C. J. This action was brought by E. M. Johnson against T. J. Fowler for a partition of property belonging to a partnership composed of the plaintiff and the defendant, and consisting of extensive farm lands, live stock, farm products, and implements, and for a receivership and rents. The plaintiff's contention is, in effect, that he and the defendant each own an equal undivided interest in all of the property; that defendant had wrongfully taken exclusive possession of all of it, and refuses to recognize plaintiff's rights. The defendant in his answer contends, in substance, that the parties had a settlement of the entire partnership business, under the terms of which the defendant was to pay the plaintiff the balance of defendant's indebtedness to him for defendant's part of the original purchase price of the property, defendant to assume and pay all of the indebtedness of the firm, and in addition a stated amount in payment for plaintiff's one-half interest in the property; that such agreement was carried out by the defendant except as to the payment to the plaintiff for his interest in the property; that defendant offered to pay this latter amount, and tendered it to plaintiff, in accordance with the contract, but plaintiff refused to accept and to consummate the agreement. Defendant alleges a continuous tender, and prays that upon payment of the amount agreed on to plaintiff that he be decreed to convey his interest in the property to defendant On the trial the evidence for the plaintiff was sufficient to sustain the case laid in the petition. The evidence for the defendant, consisting principally of his own testimony, failed to substantiate his answer, but tended to show that he had purchased from the plaintiff his entire interest in all of the partnership property, had paid him for the same, and that plaintiff had, in writing, conveyed his interest to the...