Mills v. Williams
Decision Date | 24 February 1925 |
Citation | 113 Or. 528,233 P. 542 |
Parties | MILLS v. WILLIAMS. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County; D. V. Kuykendall, Judge.
Suit by L. O. Mills against D. O. Williams. From the decree plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
This is a suit instituted to cancel a deed, note, chattel mortgage to prevent recordation of deed and transfer of note and mortgage during pendency of suit and for damages. The suit grew out of differences arising from a partnership between the parties. In June, 1918, the parties agreed to form a partnership to engage in raising and marketing cattle. By the terms of the partnership agreement plaintiff conveyed to defendant by quitclaim deed an undivided one-half interest in a tract of land then possessed by the plaintiff, and which he held under contract of purchase from the United States government. By the terms of the partnership agreement the parties were to contribute equally to the purchase price of said land and the title to that land, and all other tracts of land, thereafter purchased for use in the partnership business, should be held for the benefit of said partnership. The defendant agreed to furnish the necessary capital to finance said business. Plaintiff agreed to execute and deliver to defendant his promissory note secured by chattel mortgage on his interest in the live stock for one-half of the money so advanced by defendant. The partnership agreement was thereafter reduced to writing and dated January 25, 1919. The parts of the agreement relevant to this suit are as follows:
The agreement further provides that the parties should share equally in the profits and losses.
About December 15, 1919, defendant being dissatisfied with the management of the business by plaintiff, assumed active control and management thereof. After that date, plaintiff took no part in conducting the business of the firm. On June 22, 1920, plaintiff filed his complaint in this suit. On February 19, 1921, defendant filed his answer to which plaintiff filed his reply, April 13, 1921. On October 15 1921, after this suit was instituted, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint alleging damages caused by depasturing the land, claimed by him during 1920, with the live stock formerly belonging to the partnership and then under the control of defendant. To this supplemental complaint defendant filed his answer, according to the abstract of record, July 11, 1921. On October 14, 1921, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file another supplemental complaint, based upon damages resulting from depasturing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Infusaid Corp. v. Intermedics Infusaid, Inc.
...(finding dissolution of joint venture to have occurred in the course of a conversation between the venturers); Mills v. Williams, 113 Or. 528, 233 P. 542 (1925) (finding dissolution in one partner's taking over management of partnership's ranch). At this point, then, we must question the pr......
-
Platt v. Henderson
...the business of the firm * * * and proceeds to conduct the partnership business as his own individual business * * *.' Mills v. Williams, 113 Or. 528, 233 P. 542, 545, adopted and applied the rule just mentioned. It '* * * We believe the evidence justifies the finding that the conduct of th......
- State v. Bunke