Hill v. Hill
| Decision Date | 30 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 680. |
| Parties | HILL v. HILL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1923.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.
Bill by O. C. Hill against Mose Hill. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Morris Loveman, of Birmingham, for appellant.
W. M Woodall, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Complainant's (appellee's) bill, as last amended, averred a partnership between himself and defendant, and sought a settlement. Complainant's testimony is:
"We agreed that after the money father [defendant] had put in had been paid back to him, after all bills of the firm had been paid, that the profits were to be divided equally we were both held responsible for the debts and for the losses of the firm."
In his answer defendant denied that any partnership had ever existed between the complainant (his son) and himself, averring, in substance, that complainant was merely his agent or employee in conducting the business, a general mercantile business extending over a period of years. His testimony supported the denial and averment of his answer. In his decree the circuit judge, sitting as chancellor, held that the proof failed to show that a partnership had existed between the parties, but that they had engaged in a joint adventure and complainant was entitled to an accounting. This much of the decree is not assigned for error. Assignments of error are addressed to rulings on exceptions to the register's report and of course the register did not undertake, nor had he authority to review the finding and decree of the court in respect of the relation between the parties. However, there were no losses (that is, there was no net loss), and the account, if complainant was entitled to an accounting, was to be stated on identical principles, whether the relation was that of partners or joint adventurers.
The court is of opinion that there was error in the register's report, in that defendant was charged with the sum of $2,383 money in bank at the dissolution of the partnership, whereas the record, as we read it, shows that this sum and something more was used by defendant in discharging the debts of the partnership formed, for which defendant was allowed no credit.
Further, the evidence noted in support of defendant's fifth exception to the register's report-nothing being noted on the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pfingstl v. Solomon, 3 Div. 310.
... ... [197 So. 13] ... Wm. J ... Fuller, Jr., of Montgomery, for appellant ... Bernard ... Lobman and Hill, Hill, Whiting & Rives, all of Montgomery, ... for appellees ... FOSTER, ... This is ... a proceeding to settle a controversy ... ...
-
Doss v. Williams
... ... 566] ... [32 So.2d 222] ... Bradshaw ... & Barnett, of Florence, for appellant ... F ... S. Parnell and Orlan B. Hill, both of Florence, for ... appellee ... FOSTER, ... This is ... an appeal by respondent from a decree overruling demurrer to ... ...
-
Kenan v. Moon
...has jurisdiction to decree an accounting. Saunders v. McDonough, 191 Ala. 119, 67 So. 591; Id., 201 Ala. 321, 78 So. 160; Hill v. Hill, 208 Ala. 659, 95 So. 29; Lunsford v. Shannon, 208 Ala. 409, 94 So. Under those circumstances, it is our judgment that the court of chancery taking jurisdic......
-
Kornman v. Raskin, 8 Div. 962.
...joint adventurers. In such cases, the same equitable principles are applicable, as where the accounting is between partners. Hill v. Hill, 208 Ala. 659, 95 So. 29; Elledge v. Hotchkiss, 222 Ala. 129, 130 So. Zingelmann v. Turner et al., 235 Ala. 102, 177 So. 627. So, then, whether the compl......