Roberts v. Roberts, 15896.
| Decision Date | 07 September 1948 |
| Docket Number | 15896. |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. ROBERTS et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1948.
Error to District Court, Larimer County; Claude C. Coffin, Judge.
Action by Ernest W. Roberts against James E. Roberts and another for dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting. To review a judgment denying named defendant the right to receive distribution of one-fourth interest of capital assets or corpus of partnership, the named defendant brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Waldo Riffenburgh, of Fort Collins, and Hughes & Dorsey and E. G. Knowles, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Fancher Sarchet, of Fort Collins, for defendants in error.
George F. Roberts and Ernest W. Roberts, partners in a general ranch and cattle business and doing business under the name of Roberts Brothers Cattle Company, on December 26, 1930 entered into a written agreement with James E. Roberts by virtue of which the latter became a partner in said business to the extent of one-fourth interest.
Since said date controversies between the partners have arisen, two of which were considered by us in Roberts v. Roberts, 113 Colo. 128, 155 P.2d 155, and Roberts v. Roberts, 113 Colo. 425, 158 P.2d 184. The opinions in those cases should be read in connection with the present one. The partnership contract in question is set out in full in the first above-mentioned case, and, except for a brief except therefrom hereinafter set forth, need not be repeated.
This action was brought by Ernest for dissolution of the partnership and for an accounting. The court entered a decree dissolving the partnership, awarded to James a one-fourth interest in the profits from the operation of said business, and further ordered 'That the said James E. Roberts is not the owner of and is not entitled to any distribution of the capital assets or the corpus of said copartnership.'
The above is the only part of the decree to which plaintiff in error takes exception.
It is provided in the contract after the statement that James 'has purchased a one-fourth interest in and of the said The Roberts Brothers Cattle Company' for $1000, that the original partnerrs 'do hereby sell and convey unto him, the said James E. Roberts, and entire one-fourth interest in and of the said Roberts Brothers' Cattle Company.'
It is well to note in passing that the word 'company,' as used above, is synonymous with the term 'partnership.' People v. Strauss, 97 Ill.App. 47, 55.
The sole question here presented for determination relates to the extent of the interest in the partnership acquired by James under said agreement. In other words, is James, in addition to his right to participate in the profits of the partnership, also, upon dissolution of the partnership, entitled to one-fourth of the assets of the company?
The general rule with respect to the interest acquired by a partner in the personal property of partnerships is well stated in 40 American Jurisprudence, page 202, section 107, as follows:
It likewise is uniformly held that all contributions of personal property to a company become partnership property in the absence of specific agreement to the contrary. 40 Am.Jur. 203, § 108; 47 C.J., p. 751, § 177.
If it was the intention of the original partners to retain in themselves title to personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Clayton, 84SA530
...law is consistent with the common law. Under both the common law and the UPL, partners are joint owners of property. Roberts v. Roberts, 118 Colo. 524, 198 P.2d 453 (1948); § 7-60-106(1), 3A C.R.S. (1986). Section 18-4-401(1) provides that "[a] person commits theft when knowingly obtains or......
-
People v. Katz
...People v. Clayton, 728 P.2d 723 (Colo.1986); Byron v. York Investment Co., 133 Colo. 418, 296 P.2d 742 (1956); Roberts v. Roberts, 118 Colo. 524, 198 P.2d 453 (1948); In re Johnson, 133 Ill.2d 516, 142 Ill.Dec. 112, 552 N.E.2d 703 (Ill.1989); Grimes v. Toensing, 200 Minn. 321, 273 N.W. 816 ......
-
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co.
...them to be used by the joint venture, the vehicles remain the property of the individual joint venturer. Compare Roberts v. Roberts, 118 Colo. 524, 527, 198 P.2d 453, 454 (1948), with In re Perry's Es-state, 121 Mont. 280, 287-289, 192 P.2d 532, 536 2 The Aetna policy provides that premiums......
- Case v. Morrison
-
Opinions
...(Colo. 1987); People v. Clayton, 7728 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1986); Byron v. York Investment Co., 296 P.2d 742 (Colo. 1956); Roberts v. Roberts, 198 P.2d 453 (Colo. In re Johnson, 133 Ill. 2d 516, 552 N.E. 2d 703 (Ill. 1989); Grimes v. Toensing, 200 Minn. 321, 273 N.W. 816 (Minn. 1937), and Pierce......