Sneed v. Deal

• Decision Date: 19 April 1890
• Parties: SNEED v. DEAL
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 703

53 Ark. 152

SNEED v. DEAL

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 19, 1890

APPEAL from Faulkner Chancery Court, D. W. CARROLL, Chancellor.

E. A Bolton for appellant.

One member of a partnership cannot obtain and retain a secret advantage over his partners. The utmost good faith is required in all their dealings. 1 Bates, Part., sec. 304; 14 Beav., 250; 1 Mac. & G., 294; 64 Pa. St., 43, 50.

A partner who clandestinely claims in his own name a renewal of the lease of premises used by the firm must hold it as partnership property. 1 Bates, Part., 305, and cases cited; 2 Lindley, Part., sec. 574; 8 N.Y. 236; 29 N.Y.S. 54; 61 N.Y 123; Pom., Eq. Jur., sec. 1050.

J. H Harrod for appellees.

The lease has long since expired, and the amount due Sneed has been paid. Nothing now can be gained by reversing the decree. Upon Sneed's agreement to sell out to them, appellees simply rented the house, and thinking that Sneed was not interested in and cared nothing about the house, he was not advised of the lease. On the whole case the decree is right.

Judgment reversed.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

On the first of September, 1886, John S. Sneed, S. G. Smith and B T. Deal formed a partnership, and thereafter did a mercantile business in the town of Conway, in this State, under the firm name and style of Sneed & Co. While doing business in partnership they occupied a store-house known as the Bruce store. Finding a more desirable store, they rented it on the first of December, 1887, from J. E. Martin for a period of one year commencing on the first day of March, 1888, and caused the contract to be reduced to writing and signed. Some time about the first of of February, 1888, they talked about a dissolution of partnership. On the 13th of the same month, Deal and Smith secretly, without the knowledge or consent of Sneed, undertook to cancel the lease, and made a written contract with Martin by which they leased his store-house for the same time and upon the same terms Sneed & Co. had previously rented it. On the 28th of February, the same month, the partnership of Sneed & Co. was dissolved, and Sneed purchased and paid for the interest of Smith and Deal in the property and business thereof, without any knowledge or information of the effort of Smith and Deal to cancel the lease. His intention was to occupy and do business in the house rented from Martin, but finding that Smith and Deal had cancelled the lease thereof to Sneed & Co. and had rented the same and were in possession thereof, he brought an action in the Faulkner chancery court and asked in his complaint therein that the lease of Sneed & Co. be reinstated, or that Smith and Deal be declared trustees ...