Price v. Cox
| Decision Date | 19 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 985. |
| Citation | 242 Ala. 568,7 So.2d 288 |
| Parties | PRICE v. COX. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1942.
McQueen & McQueen, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Jas. J. Mayfield, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
Appellee D.E. Cox, brought suit in assumpsit against "Paul Wilson and George Price, partners doing business as The Villa Venice."
Mr Wilson made no defense to the suit.
Mr Price filed a sworn plea denying the existence of a partnership as alleged.
The cause was tried on this issue, resulting in a verdict and judgment against both defendants. Mr. Price appeals.
Appellant earnestly insists the evidence was insufficient to meet the burden of proof cast upon the plaintiff by the sworn plea denying the existence of a partnership between Wilson and Price, and that appellant was due the affirmative charge as requested. Code of 1923, § 7665, Code of 1940, Title 7, § 377.
In 1938, Mr. Price, a resident of York, owned and operated a grocery store in Tuscaloosa; he and Mr. Wilson were partners in operating a boarding house in Tuscaloosa patronized by students of the University. Mr. Wilson had the management Mr. Price furnished supplies.
During the summer of 1938, one or both of them conceived the idea of leasing, conditioning and furnishing an old passenger station in Tuscaloosa, and operating a night club under the name of "Villa Venice."
In a letter of July 8th Mr. Price wrote: "Paul, I think we have something in our depot ideas, but have found no means of financing it." This letter in no way committed Mr. Price to become a partner in the enterprise, and suggested the forming of a stock company or getting some moneyed man in Tuscaloosa interested. Then added: "You have a wonderful opportunity and I think you have just what it takes to put it over, and further more I have never dealt with a squarer shooter than you are."
A letter of July 12th discloses Mr. Price had declined to sign a lease, again suggested enlisting a Tuscaloosa man, and further said:
appears by what followed that a lease of the property was acquired without Mr. Price's signature. On August 12th a contract in writing was entered into with Mr. Cox to do interior painting, sanding and varnishing floors, and finishing tables.
This contract was negotiated by Mr. Wilson; signed: "Paul Wilson, awarding authority, for Geo. Price & Paul Wilson." The caption disclosing parties and subject matter recited: Clearly it purported to bind both as partners.
Admittedly Mr. Cox performed his contract. Mr. Price, up to that date, had not held himself out to Mr. Cox as a partner or as otherwise interested in the project.
Other evidence tended to show Mr. Price visited the place of work while the painting and carpenter work were in progress and by word and act disclosed an interest in keeping down the cost of the painting job. Other evidence appears of a willingness to sell the boarding house business, with efforts to that end, the proceeds to be used to meet the expenses of fitting up the new place of business.
Other evidence tended to show an urgent need to meet pay rolls of August 20th, which brought Mr. Price to Tuscaloosa, who gave a check to Mr. Wilson in part payment for the purchase of the latter's interest in the boarding house business, and aided in making this fund available to meet the pay rolls after banking hours. On September 1st Mr. Price caused notice to be published in a newspaper in Tuscaloosa, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bishop v. Johnson
-
Bailey v. Bailey
...See, e.g., Odess v. Taylor, 282 Ala. 389, 211 So.2d 805 (1968); Norden v. Capps, 272 Ala. 473, 131 So.2d 679 (1959); Price v. Cox, 242 Ala. 568, 7 So.2d 288 (1942); White v. Jackson, 36 Ala.App. 643, 62 So. 477 (1953); Cox v. Fielding, 24 Ala.App. 68, 130 So. 164 (1930). The obligation to b......
-
Odess v. Taylor
...resulting from the 'association.' Division of profits, and liability for losses are essential elements of a partnership. Price v. Cox, 242 Ala. 568, 7 So.2d 288; Cox v. Fielding, 24 Ala.App. 68, 130 So. 164. The association between Dr. Odess and Dr. Taylor thus lacked the essential elements......
-
Murphy v. Pickle
...any ruling of the trial court on the admission or exclusion of evidence. However, we call attention to the case of Price v. Cox, 242 Ala. 568, 570, 7 So.2d 288, 290, wherein the following language was quoted with approval from 70 Corpus Juris 796, § 994: "A party who calls his adversary as ......