Little v. Britton

• Decision Date: 07 November 1914
• Docket Number: 661
• Citation: 189 Ala. 10,66 So. 694
• Parties: LITTLE v. BRITTON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

66 So. 694

189 Ala. 10

LITTLE v. BRITTON et al.

No. 661

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 7, 1914

Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.

Suit by W.L. Little against W.F. Britton and others to avoid an assignment of a chose in action. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Charles F. Douglass, of Anniston, for appellant.

Willett & Willett, of Anniston, for appellees.

McCLELLAN J.

Little & Britton was a partnership engaged in working and executing building contracts in the city of Anniston. In enforcement of the firm's right to a balance due for building a house for O.H. Sompke a judgment for $193, in favor of the firm imposing a lien upon the property, was rendered by the city court of Anniston. Willett and Welborn purchased the judgment through Britton, the junior partner, the formal assignment being made, for convenience, to their agent, Dent. The sum paid by them was $40; the price's depression being due to the asserted doubt whether the lien of the judgment was not subordinate to a previous mortgage given for purchase money of the lot on which the building was erected.

This bill seeks to avoid the sale and assignment of the judgment by Britton to Willett and Welborn on the ground of fraud, in fact and in law affecting the dealing between Britton and Willett and Welborn. Our conclusion accords with that given effect in the decree appealed from, that the right to this relief was not sustained in law or in fact.

"Each partner is the agent of the firm as to all transactions coming within the scope of the partnership business. This general authority is to be tested by the nature of the particular business to which the partnership relates, and its ordinary usages." Ala. Fertilizer Co. v Reynolds, 79 Ala. 497, 502. The nature and purposes of the partnership described in the pleading and evidence in this cause imparted as to third persons not put on notice to the contrary that each partner had the authority to deal with, to sell, the choses in action of the partnership or to collect or to adjust debts due the firm.

Limitations upon the individual partner's authority, within the scope of the partnership's business, are only operative between the partners, unless the third party charged is acquainted with the special limitations upon that partner's authority in the premises. McCrary v. Slaughter, 58 Ala. 230; Crosswell v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 54...