J. A. Holifield & Co. v. White

• Decision Date: 31 July 1874
• Citation: 52 Ga. 567
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: J. A. Holifield & Company, plaintiffs in error. v. Louisa A. White, executrix, defendant in error.

52 Ga. 567

J. A. Holifield & Company, plaintiffs in error. v. Louisa A. White, executrix, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1874.)

Partnership. Landlord and tenant. Levy and sale. Charge of Court. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1874.

J. A. Holifield & Company sued out an attachment against James F. A. Royal for $500 20, besides interest, and had the same levied upon a one-half interest in thirty-eight bales of cot-ton. A claim was interposed by James F. White. Pending the litigation the claimant died, and his executrix, Louisa A. White, was made a party in his stead.

The issues made upon the trial were, first, one of fact, to wit: whether Royal had turned over to White his interest in the cotton made on the place cultivated by them jointly, in accordance with an agreement that the latter was to control the same until all indebtedness to him for advances, etc., was satisfied. Second, one of law, to-wit: whether the contract under which they farmed constituted them partners, for in the latter event, the partnership property could not be levied on under an attachment against one member of the firm. Upon the first point the evidence was conflicting. Upon the second, *the facts were undisputed, but the conclusion therefrom were denied.

The jury found the property not subject. Whereupon the plaintiffs moved for a new trial upon the following grounds, to-wit:

1st. Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "If White was to furnish the land and teams on his part, and Royal was to furnish the labor and pay for it, and White was to pay one-half the feed of the stock and laborers, and Royal the other half, and each was to pay one-half of all the other plantation expenses, and thus make a crop, and when the crop was made that they were to divide the same, share and share alike, this makes them partners."

2d. Because the court erred in refusing to charge the jury as follows: "If they believe that the contract constituted a part-nership, and that White appropriated the partnership effects wrongfully to his own use, then it was a conversion by White of this property and dissolved the partnership, and made them tenants in common in the cotton as to the plaintiffs."

3d. Because the court erred in refusing to charge the jury as follows: "If Holifield & Company advanced to Royal the goods, not knowing that it was a partnership, then the property is liable."

The motion was overruled and the plaintiffs excepted.

James M. Russell, for plaintiffs in error.

Ingram & Crawford, for defendant.

TRIPPE, Judge.

White was to furnish the land and stock, and Royal the labor and pay for it. This made, as they rated it, each of them equal...