Holmes v. Jarrett Moon & Co.
| Citation | 54 Tenn. 506 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1872 |
| Parties | JAMES M. HOLMES v. JARRETT MOON & CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM HUMPHREYS.
From the Circuit Court, November Term, 1870. JAS. E. RICE, J.
J. R. HUBBARD for plaintiff.
H. M. MCADOO for defendants.
This is an action of ejectment, brought in the Circuit Court of Humphreys county by Jarrett, Moon & Co. against James M. Holmes. The plaintiffs obtained a judgment, from which defendant appealed in error.
The first ground relied on for reversal is error in the refusal of the Circuit Judge to charge the following proposition:
“If the proof shows that Jarrett and Moon were partners, under the firm name of Jarrett, Moon & Co., and that the deed in this case was made to such firm, and not to the individual members of such firm, the jury should find for the defendant.”
The principle of law is well settled that it is impossible for a partnership, as such, to hold the legal title of real estate. Only a person can do this, and a corporation only because it is a person in law, but this a partnership, is not. Parsons on Partnership, 366. But when a deed is made to a partnership, the legal title vests in such of the members of the firm individually as are named in the conveyance.
The legal title, so vested in one or more individual members of the firm, is held in trust for the partnership. Moreau v. Saffarans, 3 Sneed, 599.
If then it had appeared in proof in the present case, that the deed on which plaintiffs relied conveyed the title to Jarrett, Moon & Co., and if it also appeared that Jarrett, Moon & Co. was a partnership, composed of Jarrett and Moon, and others not named or proven, it would follow that the legal title vested in Jarrett and Moon as trustees for the partnership, unless the fact that the given names of Jarrett and Moon were not proven rendered the deed void for uncertainty. We know of no authority for holding that a deed is void if the given name of the grantee is omitted. An ambiguity of that kind may be explained by parol proof, and the parties intended to be designated as grantees thus made certain. Ward v. Espy, 6 Hum., 447.
But as matter of fact it does not appear in the bill of exceptions that there was any proof whatever showing that Jarrett, Moon & Co. constituted a partnership, of which Jarrett and Moon were two members. Nor does it appear from anything in the record that Jarrett Moon is not one individual. It does appear throughout the record that there was more than one plaintiff, but this would appear as well if Jarrett Moon was only one person, as if the name designated two. As far as the record shows, the legal title of the land is in Jarrett Moon, and not in Jarrett and Moon.
Upon either ground there is no error in the refusal of the Court to give the charge.
The next ground on which it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kincade v. Jeffery-De Witt Insulator Corporation
...is either effective against the individual partners or is entirely nugatory. Barnes v. Fort, 181 Tenn. 522, 181 S.W. 2d 881; Holmes v. Moon, 54 Tenn. 506; T.C.A. § A joint venture is similar to a partnership and is governed by the same rules. Pritchett v. Thomas Plater Co., 144 Tenn. 406, 2......
-
International House of Talent, Inc. v. Alabama
...is ordinarily admissible to establish the identities of the parties to a contract or other legal instrument. See Holmes v. Jarrett Moon & Company, 54 Tenn. 506 (1872); Acme Metals, Inc. v. Weddington, 575 S.W.2d 15 (Tenn.App.1978); Annot. 80 A.L.R.2d 1137 (1961). We recognize that in the ca......
-
Holmes v. Jarrett Moon & Co.
...54 Tenn. 506 JAMES M. HOLMES v. JARRETT MOON & CO. Supreme Court of Tennessee.February 14, FROM HUMPHREYS. From the Circuit Court, November Term, 1870. JAS. E. RICE, J. J. R. HUBBARD for plaintiff. H. M. MCADOO for defendants. OPINION NICHOLSON, C. J. This is an action of ejectment, brought......