Mabry v. Ray
Decision Date | 04 January 1923 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 814. |
Citation | 95 So. 6,208 Ala. 615 |
Parties | MABRY v. RAY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coosa County; W. L. Longshore, Judge.
Bill by M. A. Ray against G. M. Mabry for the dissolution of a partnership existing between the parties, accounting, etc. From the decree, respondent appeals. Affirmed.
S. J Darby, of Alexander City, and Felix L. Smith & Son, of Rockford, for appellant.
J Sanford Mullins, of Alexander City, and John A. Darden, of Goodwater, for appellee.
The suit was for accounting between parties in a joint adventure. Julian v. Woolbert, 202 Ala. 530, 81 So. 32; Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 205 Ala. 347, 87 So 186; Lunsford & Malone v. Shannon (Ala. Sup.) 94 So 571.
In obedience thereto the register made a report of his (second) reference, to which exceptions, taken by appellee, were sustained. That decree contains, among other things, the following:
Under subdivision 1, section 5955, of the Code of 1907, the finding of a register based on the oral examination of witnesses is presumptively correct, and, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether it is correct, such finding should not be disturbed by the review of his holding by the trial judge or by appellate courts. Such finding has the effect of a jury's verdict. Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 So. 685; Andrews v. Grey, 199 Ala. 152, 74 So. 62; A. T. & N. R. Co. v. Aliceville Lumber Co., 199 Ala. 391, 409, 74 So. 441; Burgess v. Burgess, 201 Ala. 631, 79 So. 193; Clifford v. Montgomery, 202 Ala. 609, 81 So. 551; Porter v. Henderson, 204 Ala. 564, 86 So. 531.
In a reconsideration of the evidence the trial court made the basis of the final decree the fact that complainant (appellee) paid into the partnership $619.12, and further contributed to the joint adventure, pursuant to agreement or with the knowledge and consent of the partner therein, the use of a team and driver for hauling for the benefit of the joint business, which the court found to be reasonably worth and allowed the sum of $500. Having ascertained and allowed to respondent (appellant) the sum of $1,100 as having been contributed by him to the joint business, the court further found:
"From a study of the legal, relevant, and material...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.
... ... Clark, 184 Ala. 391, 394, 63 So ... 948; Indian Ref. Co. v. Van Valkenburg, 208 Ala. 62, ... 93 So. 895; Hamilton v. Terry F. & L. Co., 206 Ala ... 622, 91 So. 489; Lunsford v. Shannon, 208 Ala. 409, ... 94 So. 571; Julian v. Woolbert, 202 Ala. 530, 81 So ... 32; Mabry v. Ray, 208 Ala. 615, 95 So. 6; Clark ... v. Whitfield, 213 Ala. 441, 105 So. 200; Alston v ... Alston, 34 Ala. 15; Goodwin v. McGehee, 15 Ala ... 232, 248; Nelson and Hatch v. Dunn et al., 15 Ala ... 501, 515 ... The ... nature, distinction, and right of a bill of ... ...
-
Crowson v. Cody
...622, 91 So. 489; Tolleson v. Henson, 207 Ala. 529, 93 So. 458; Indian Ref. Co. v. Van Valkenburg, 208 Ala. 62, 93 So. 895; Mabry v. Ray, 208 Ala. 615, 95 So. 6; Henry v. Ide, 209 Ala. 367, 96 So. 698; v. Ford, 211 Ala. 242, 100 So. 96. And the necessity of averment in a court of equity to o......
-
Ex parte Jackson
... ... examination of the witnesses has the effect of a jury's ... verdict. Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 So ... 685. And, if there is a reasonable doubt as to whether it is ... correct, the same will be resolved in favor of the finding, ... and it will not be disturbed. Mabry v. Ray, 208 Ala ... 615, 95 So. 6; Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 207 ... Ala. 303, 92 So. 789; Porter v. Henderson, 204 Ala ... 564, 86 So. 531; Clifford v. Montgomery, 202 Ala ... 609, 81 So. 551; A., T., & N. Ry. Co. v. Aliceville Lbr ... Co., 199 Ala. 391, 409, 74 So. 441; Andrews v ... ...
-
Buttrey v. Buttrey
...the same is resolved in favor of the finding and the same will not be disturbed. Horst v. Pake, 195 Ala. 620, 71 So. 430; Mabry v. Ray, 208 Ala. 615, 95 So. 6; Ex Jackson, 212 Ala. 496, 103 So. 558; Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 207 Ala. 303, 92 So. 789; A.T. & N.Ry. Co. v. Aliceville Lbr.......