Marston v. Marston
| Citation | 277 Mass. 129,177 N.E. 862 |
| Parties | MARSTON et al. v. MARSTON. |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1931 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester County; Winfred H. Whiting, Judge.
Suit by T. Franklin Marston and another against Irene Marston, administratrix of the estate of Robert Marston, deceased. From the decree, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
L. E. Stockwell, of Worcester, for appellants.
S. B. Milton, of Worcester, for appellee.
This is a bill in equity by two surviving partners against the administratrix of the estate of Robert Marston, a deceased partner, for an accounting. The case was referred to a master whose report was confirmed and a final decree entered establishing the indebtedness of the plaintiffs to the defendant in a stated sum with interest from January 28, 1930, the date of the death of Robert Marston, which caused the dissolution of the partnership. From this decree the plaintiffs appealed.
The farm on which the partnership business was carried on was owned by the plaintiff T. Franklin Marston. The other two partners were his sons. Before 1921 an old greenhouse designated as No. 1 was on the farm. In that year and the next, greenhouse No. 2 was erected. For several years prior to March 1, 1925, Robert and T. Franklin Marston carried on the farm. On that date the plaintiffs and Robert Marston entered into an oral agreement forming a partnership at will for carrying on a greenhouse business, agreeing that the father would allow the use of his farm by the partnership, that the partnership would pay the taxes thereon and a specified sum each year on the principal of a mortgage to which the farm was subject, and also pay interest on the mortgage. Each partner agreed to devote his time, labor and energy to carrying on the partnership business, and all were to share equally the profits and the losses. The partners carried on business under this agreement until January 28, 1930.
After March 1, 1925, and before the end of 1926, greenhouses, designated by the numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6, and a boiler house were built and a boiler was installed. These four greenhouses were erected by the labor of the three partners, the material in those numbered 3 and 4 being paid for by Lisle Marston and the partnership, and the material in those numbered 5 and 6 being paid for with partnership funds and partnership credit. The boiler was purchased by the partners with partnership funds on a conditional sale agreement. All were used in the business of the partnership. Robert devoted his time to the business of the partnership until his death; since then his brother and father have carried on the business as it had been carried on before and they intend to continue in the business in the same place. The administratrix of the estate of Robert assented to the continuation of the business by the surviving partners and she has made no assignment of the interest of her deceased husband in the partnership. The plaintiffs have stated in their brief that the sole question for decision is whether the greenhouses numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beacon Oil Co. v. Maniatis
...the lease was taken (Lurie v. Pinanski, 215 Mass. 229, 102 N. E. 629;Deutschman v. Dwyer, 223 Mass. 261, 111 N. E. 877;Marston v. Marston, 277 Mass. 129, 177 N. E. 862), and the statute of frauds was not pleaded (Livingstone v. Murphy, 187 Mass. 315, 318, 72 N. E. 1012,105 Am. St. Rep. 400;......
-
Beacon Oil Company v. Alexander Maniatis
...Patchiavos were equal partners when the lease was taken (Lurie v. Pinanski, 215 Mass. 229; Deutschman v. Dwyer, 223 Mass. 261; Marston v. Marston, 277 Mass. 129), and the statute of frauds was not pleaded. Livingstone Murphy, 187 Mass. 315 , 318. Burke v. McLaughlin, 246 Mass. 533 , 538. Ba......
-
Estate of Mladinich v. Commissioner, Docket No. 15841-89.
...all likelihood they were based on contemporaneous statements of those concerned. 8. See supra note 5. 9. See also Marston v. Marston, 277 Mass. 129, 177 N.E. 862, 863 (1931) ("If the buildings in question were held not to be partnership property the father would receive a larger share of th......
-
Gauldin v. Corn, 11105
...duty of the owner of the soil is to pay money, not to give real estate or an interest therein." 100 A. at 755-756. In Marston v. Marston, 277 Mass. 129, 177 N.E. 862 (1931), a father and his two sons entered into an oral agreement, forming a partnership at will, for carrying on a greenhouse......