McCrary v. Butler
Decision Date | 10 February 1989 |
Citation | 540 So.2d 736 |
Parties | Sterling McCRARY v. Al BUTLER, d/b/a Silver Farms. Sterling McCRARY v. GENERAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 87-1561, 88-116. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert B. French, Jr., Fort Payne, for appellant.
John F. Porter III of Livingston, Porter & Paulk, Scottsboro, for appellees.
Al Butler, individually and doing business as Silver Farms, filed a complaint in detinue in the Circuit Court of Jackson County against Sterling McCrary, seeking recovery of certain farm machinery and equipment, 1 which McCrary had taken possession of and placed with an auction company for sale. When the trial court set the date for the detinue hearing, it also issued an order for writ of seizure and the Sheriff seized the equipment described in the complaint. Subsequently, General Equipment Company 2 and John Deere Company filed a petition to intervene, claiming an interest in the equipment. The trial court granted the petition. 3
After taking testimony ore tenus, the trial court found that Butler and McCrary were operating a partnership or joint venture and that General Equipment had an interest in the equipment.
McCrary appealed. The issues before us are:
(1) Whether the trial court's holding that Butler and McCrary were engaged in a partnership or a joint venture was plainly and palpably erroneous.
(2) Whether the trial court's holding that Butler had actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of the partnership or joint venture, or as an agent of McCrary, was plainly and palpably erroneous.
(3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing McCrary to raise the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds.
Randy Tubbs, the president and manager of General Equipment, testified that he had known and done business with both Butler and McCrary individually and had introduced them to each other; that they then began to do business as a partnership under the name of Silver Farms; that they, as well as their employees, thereafter purchased equipment, etc., under an open account from General Equipment in the name of Silver Farms, with the statements sent to Butler's mailing address.
Butler testified that he and McCrary had entered into an agreement to conduct business together as a partnership under the name Silver Farms; that he, individually or as Silver Farms, thereafter purchased equipment from General Equipment on an open account; and that, when the open account became too great, they agreed to give General Equipment and John Deere a security interest in the equipment. Butler further testified that he and McCrary had discussed these arrangements with Tubbs and were in full agreement that the transaction be handled accordingly. Consequently, Butler testified that he executed and delivered three security agreements as agreed upon; he also testified that the equipment was not financed in McCrary's name because McCrary's poor credit rating was insufficient to support the assignment of the security interests by General Equipment to John Deere. Furthermore, upon the default on the notes, John Deere reassigned these notes to General Equipment.
McCrary, through an oral answer allowed by the trial court at the commencement of the trial, denied all the material allegations of General Equipment's complaint. McCrary testified that Butler was his employee; that no partnership existed under the name Silver Farms; that Butler had no apparent or actual authority to act on behalf of the alleged partnership or as McCrary's agent; and that at no time did he enter into an agreement with Butler to give General Equipment and John Deere a security interest in the equipment.
The following contentions of the parties were included in the trial court's order:
There was substantial conflict in the testimony presented to the trial court, and the existence of a partnership or joint venture was in dispute. The evidence regarding whether a partnership or joint venture existed was presented ore tenus to the trial court. The ore tenus rule is applicable when deciding whether a partnership existed. Adderhold v. Adderhold, 426 So.2d 457 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Bailey v. Bailey, 345 So.2d 304 (Ala.Civ.App.1977).
(Emphasis in original.)
King v. Travelers Insurance Co., 513 So.2d 1023, 1026 (Ala.1987); see also Moore v. Williams, 519 So.2d 1337 (Ala.1988); Sims v. Sims, 502 So.2d 722 (Ala.1987).
There is no arbitrary test as to whether a partnership exists, but such a determination will be made upon all of the attendant circumstances. Adderhold v. Adderhold, supra. A partnership arises only from an express or implied agreement among the parties and is never established by implication or by operation of law. Waters v. Union Bank of Repton, 370 So.2d 957 (Ala.1979); Adderhold v. Adderhold, supra; see also Ala.Code 1975, § 10-8-20. This Court, in Waters v. Union Bank of Repton, supra, held that Id. at 960. The right to manage and control a business is one circumstance to be considered in determining the existence of a partnership relationship. § 10-8-20; Adderhold v. Adderhold, supra.
When a person makes a representation, either by words (spoken or written) or by conduct, that a partnership exists, and a third party relies upon that representation and gives credit to the actual or apparent partnership based upon that representation, he is liable for the debt created. Ala.Code 1975, § 10-8-55(a).
Property is presumed to be partnership property where it is acquired in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weiner v. Fleischman
...joint ventures, 19 expressly or apparently use the "preponderance" standard. This group of states includes: Alabama (McCrary v. Butler (Ala.1989) 540 So.2d 736, 739); Arizona (Tripp v. Chubb (1949) 69 Ariz. 31, 34, 208 P.2d 312, 314); Arkansas (Carroll v. Kessinger (1957) 228 Ark. 450, 307 ......
-
Connors v. Ryan's Coal Co., Inc.
...agreement between the parties may evidence the intention of the parties to establish ... a partnership relationship." McCrary v. Butler, 540 So.2d 736, 739 (Ala.1989). Relevant indicia of a partnership include: intent and agreement to be partners, sharing the profits and losses, and sharing......
-
Iverson v. Xpert Tune, Inc.
...they are plainly and palpably erroneous after considering all inferences that can logically be drawn from the evidence. McCrary v. Butler, 540 So.2d 736 (Ala.1989). From our review of the record, we find credible evidence from which the trial court found that Iverson was guilty of willful c......
-
Ingram v. Deere
...or (4) ownership of mineral property under a joint operating agreement. TEX.REV.CIV. STAT. art. 6132b-2.03(b). 8. McCrary v. Butler, 540 So.2d 736, 739 (Ala. 1989) (stating that "[t]here is no arbitrary test as to whether a partnership exists, but such a determination will be made upon all ......