Murphy v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 28 February 1914
• Citation: 104 N.E. 466,217 Mass. 233
• Parties: MURPHY v. MURPHY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

217 Mass. 233

104 N.E. 466

MURPHY v. MURPHY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 28, 1914

COUNSEL

Charles H. Cronin, of Boston, for appellant.

David Stoneman, of Boston, for appellee.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

The plaintiff brings this suit in equity to compel the defendant as administratrix of the estate and widow of Patrick P Murphy to perform specifically the provisions of a partnership agreement entered into between him and the defendant's husband. The findings of fact made by the judge of the superior court, the evidence not having been reported, must be accepted as final. These are in substance that the plaintiff and his brother, the husband of the defendant, were conducting a liquor business as copartners under an oral agreement. In April, 1912, they entered into a written agreement whereby the partnership was extended for five years from May 1, 1912. It further was stipulated that in the event of the death of Patrick before the end of the five-years period, or the earlier termination of the partnership by mutual consent, the plaintiff should pay to the widow or legal representatives of Patrick $3,000, and that thereupon he should become the sole owner of the partnership business. At this time Patrick, although in poor health, was capable of making the agreement and understood and appreciated its effect. He executed the contract voluntarily and without fraudulent or improper influence. There was some talk between the brothers respecting mutual wills, but Patrick believed that the partnership agreement was the best way of carrying out his desire that, in the event of his death, the plaintiff should own his interest in the partnership property upon paying $3,000, which he thought, together with his other property, would sufficiently provide for the defendant. He did not intend to evade the provisions of the statute of wills, nor, fraudulently or otherwise, to deprive his wife of her statutory rights. The plaintiff has offered to pay the defendant $3,000, but she has refused to accept it and release her interest in the partnership business.

Partnership agreements which provide for the conduct of the business after the death of one or more of the partners, and for the disposition of the interest of partners in the partnership in such event, are frequent. See Williams v. Brookline, 194 Mass. 45, 79 N.E. 779. When fairly made, without any illegal purpose and without the intent to evade the statute of wills, they are not open to objection. Contracts respecting the disposition of one's property after death are not uncommon. See for example, Krell v. Codman, 154 Mass. 454, 28 N.E. 578, 14 L. R. A. 860, 26 Am. St. Rep. 260, and Howe v. Watson, 179 Mass. 30, 60 N.E. 415. There are sound reasons why a fair agreement entered into by partners, as to the disposition of partnership property in the event of the death of one or more of the partners, should be sustained. The terms of such an agreement made by those most familiar with the real character and value of the property, are quite as likely to be just as an arrangement made after the decease. The contract at bar was executed upon a valid consideration, and, having been found expressly not to have been intended as a testamentary disposition, must be upheld.

The plaintiff as the surviving partner, in the absence of any term in the articles of copartnership governing the matter would take as owner the legal title to firm property. Holbrook v. Lackey, 13...