Peters v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 13 December 1926
• Docket Number: Civil 2529
• Parties: CORNELIA PETERS, as Administratrix of the Estate of ALFRED J. PETERS, Deceased, Appellant, v. GEORGE TAYLOR and JOSEPHINE TAYLOR, Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

251 P. 446

31 Ariz. 169

CORNELIA PETERS, as Administratrix of the Estate of ALFRED J. PETERS, Deceased, Appellant, v. GEORGE TAYLOR and JOSEPHINE TAYLOR, Appellees

Civil No. 2529

Supreme Court of Arizona

December 13, 1926

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Joseph S. Jenckes, Judge. Affirmed.

Mr Leon S. Jacobs and Mr. Joseph E. Morrison, for Appellant.

Messrs Armstrong, Lewis & Kramer, for Appellees.

OPINION

ROSS, J.

This action was instituted by Alfred J. Peters against George Taylor and others to establish a copartnership between plaintiff and Taylor, and to require an accounting of Taylor and of Josephine Taylor, his wife, Wane and Gail Taylor their sons, Victor Lamb, Jr., and Roy Tharp, in whom, it is alleged, title of certain partnership property was held. The suit was begun and prosecuted through the trial by plaintiff, Alfred J. Peters. At the hearing of the case on appeal the death of the plaintiff was suggested and Cornelia Peters, as administratrix of the estate of Alfred J. Peters, deceased, substituted as the appellant in this court.

Plaintiff alleges the partnership was formed in August, 1902, "for the purpose of conducting farming and other operations in and around Tempe and other places and points in Arizona under the name and style of Peters & Taylor"; that they contributed in equal proportions about $2,000 in farming machinery hogs and cattle; that Peters was to finance the partnership operations and Taylor to manage and conduct the farming operations; that they were to share equally in profits and losses; that for certain business reasons the bulk of the partnership property was to be held in Taylor's name.

It is alleged that from the profits made in farming the partners purchased cattle, horses and cattle ranches in Maricopa, Pinal and Gila counties, and farm lands in Maricopa county, taking title in the name of Taylor, who in some cases placed title in the names of other members of his family. Then follows a description of the brands of cattle and horses claimed to be partnership property, but the title to which was recorded in the name of Josephine Taylor; also brands of cattle and horses in the name of Wane and Gail Taylor; also brands of cattle and horses in the name of George Taylor and Victor Lamb, Jr., jointly, and in the name of George Taylor and Roy Tharp jointly.

Property, real and personal, the record title to which was alleged to be in defendant Taylor, is described as the west half of section 25, township 1 north, range 4 east, Maricopa county, tools, farm, and ranch implements, cotton, cattle, horses and brands, consisting of the SA, 1C, PX, X $98 and $98 brands. The plaintiff avers the value of the above property, as he is informed and believes, is in excess of $500,000 -- the liabilities against it not to exceed $100,000.

It is alleged that no settlement, partial or otherwise, has ever been had; that since March 1, 1915, defendant Taylor has refused to account with or to plaintiff for any of the partnership property, and on September 2, 1921, stated to plaintiff no partnership existed, and that therefore he had no accounting or settlement to make.

The defendants in their answer pleaded that in February, 1915, all partnership relations existing between plaintiff and defendant were by mutual consent dissolved and an accounting had of all transactions; that upon said accounting it was ascertained the plaintiff owed defendant George Taylor the sum of $17,000; also that plaintiff's cause of action was barred under the provisions of subdivision 2, paragraph 713 of the Civil Code of 1913, as before the filing of the complaint more than four years had run since they had ceased to have any dealings with each other.

Following general and specific denials, the defendants allege that in 1902 Taylor and Peters engaged in two specific farming ventures, one on the Wilbur ranch and one on the Billups ranch, near Mesa, and between said date of 1902 and January 1915, they engaged in numerous separate farming ventures under different and distinct agreements; that during said period they purchased what is known as the Mons Ellingson ranch, consisting of one section, taking title in their joint names; that they purchased from the Packard Investment Company a half section, taking title in their joint names; that during said time the said Peters and Taylor, with one Jepson, bought what is known as the Kyrene ranch, the title to which was taken in part in Peters' name, in part in Taylor's name, and in part in Jepson's name, and in the names of members of their different families.

The defendants allege that in February, 1915, the only property plaintiff and George Taylor were jointly interested in was the Packard ranch and the Kyrene ranch; that at that time Peters and his wife deeded the Packard ranch to Taylor, and Taylor and wife deeded, or agreed to deed, whatever interest said Taylor had in the Kyrene ranch to plaintiff, Peters, with the agreement that if the said Peters within a reasonable time paid and discharged certain notes upon which Taylor was indorser or accommodation maker for Peters and paid Taylor the sum of $17,000 balance of account on the Packard ranch, and interest upon certain indebtedness, then Taylor would reconvey to Peters an undivided one half interest in the Packard ranch, and if Peters should sell the Kyrene ranch for as much as $96,000 (the indebtedness against the same), he would pay to Taylor the sum of $8,000, and should he sell the Kyrene ranch for more than $96,000 he would divide the excess equally between Taylor, Jepson and Peters.

It is further alleged on information and belief that in February, 1920, Peters sold a portion of the Kyrene ranch for $150,000, and that Taylor and wife conveyed at that time a portion of the Kyrene ranch, then appearing of record in their names, to said Peters, upon the agreement and understanding that Peters would surrender and release any and all claims in and to the Packard ranch and pay Taylor the sum of $15,000, and thereafter, on December 18th, deeded to said Peters, or to his named grantee, the rest of the Kyrene ranch in Taylor's name.

Upon the issues thus formed the trial was had before the court with a jury. At the close of the case, on, to wit, May 2, 1925, upon motion of the defendants, the court dismissed the complaint against Josephine Taylor, Wane and Gail Taylor, Victor Lamb, Jr., and Roy Tharp, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient as to them to support the allegations thereof.

There were submitted to the jury seven special interrogatories, which, together with the answers of the jury thereto, are as follows:

"No. 1. On or about August 31, 1902, did the plaintiff, A. J. Peters, and the defendant George Taylor enter into an agreement by the terms of which they were to jointly carry on or conduct the business of farming and other operations during an unspecified period of time and to share equally in the profits and losses of such business? Answer: Yes.

"No. 2. If you answer interrogatory No. 1 in the in the affirmative, did the plaintiff, A. J. Peters, and the defendant George Taylor pursuant to such agreement purchase cattle, horses, and cattle ranges within the state of Arizona? Answer: No.

"No. 4. If you answer interrogatory No. 1 in the affirmative, did Alfred J. Peters and George Taylor then and there, to wit, on or about August 31, 1902, agree that Alfred J. Peters would be equally interested with George Taylor in all property acquired through farming and other operations entered into by George Taylor until the termination of partnership relations between them? Answer: No.

"No. 5. Was the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant George Taylor, on to wit, August 31, 1902, limited to farming operations? Answer: Yes.

"No. 6. On or about February, 1915, did plaintiff, Peters, and defendant Taylor cease doing business together under the agreement of August 31, 1902? Answer: Yes.

"No. 7. On or about February, 1920, was there a settlement between plaintiff, Alfred J. Peters, and defendant George Taylor of the account between them arising out of their joint operations under the agreement of August 31, 1902? Answer: No."

Upon the return of the jury's answers to the interrogatories both parties moved for judgment. Plaintiff's motion was overruled, and defendant's motion was granted. Theaction being an equitable one, the jury's answers to the interrogatories were not binding upon the court but merely advisory. Interrogatory No. 7 was therefore rejected, the others being approved.

In addition, the court found as facts:

That plaintiff and defendant entered into a partnership agreement as alleged in plaintiff's complaint and carried on business thereunder from August 31, 1902, to February, 1915 that the partnership did not purchase any range cattle or cattle ranges in pursuance of said agreement, or at all. That defendant Taylor did not place the title of any partnership property in his name or the name of any member of his family or any of the other defendants, nor use any partnership funds for his individual use or benefit. That the partnership agreement was not that plaintiff should share equally with defendant in all property acquired by the latter through farming and other operations until the termination of the partnership relation. That defendant Taylor has not in his possession any property, real or personal, in which plaintiff has any right, title, or interest, individually or otherwise. That the west half of section 25, township 1 north, range 3 east, Maricopa county, "together with the tools, farm and ranch equipment and other personal property on said premises and the brands SA, IC, PX, X $98 and $98 and the cattle...