Treadaway v. Stansell

• Decision Date: 22 May 1919
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 14
• Citation: 203 Ala. 52,82 So. 12
• Parties: TREADAWAY et al. v. STANSELL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

82 So. 12

203 Ala. 52

TREADAWAY et al. v. STANSELL.

7 Div. 14

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 22, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Bill by A.G. Stansell against F.S. Treadaway and another. From decree rendered, respondents appeal. Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.

Bill by appellee against F.S. Treadaway and N.K. Bitting. Respondent Treadaway interposed demurrers to the bill on the ground of multifariousness, in that it seeks a settlement of the partnership affairs of complainant and Treadaway, and also seeks an accounting between respondent Bitting and said partnership, said Bitting not being concerned with a large part of such settlement, among other grounds.

The demurrers of the respondent Treadaway were overruled. Respondent N.K. Bitting appeared specially, for the sole purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction of the court; said pleas being in effect that he was a permanent resident of the state of Georgia, and that by reason of his being a nonresident of the state of Alabama the complainant in this cause is not entitled to maintain a personal action against him, as no personal service was had upon him, and that he was only brought into court by publication.

Upon submission to the court, it was decreed that said pleas were insufficient and invalid as pleas to the jurisdiction, and from this decree respondents prosecute this appeal separately assigning errors.

The bill, in substance, alleged a partnership agreement between complainant and respondent Treadaway, a resident of Calhoun county, Ala., for the purpose of manufacturing and selling heading timber, and other finished products for the manufacture of barrels; that the expenses and profits were to be equally divided; the said Treadaway to have general superintendence of the affairs of the firm. This partnership was formed about March 1, 1916, and a milling plant purchased. The partnership continued to so operate until May 1918, when it ceased to do business. That upon organization a mill plant was purchased, and, being in need of funds, the partnership executed to respondent N.K. Bitting note and mortgage in the sum of $4,000, said mortgage conveying to said respondent Bitting the entire plant, machinery, and equipment of said partnership, and in addition complainant and respondent Treadaway appointed N.K. Bitting trustee to sell in the markets the products of the firm, and to collect therefor in due course of business, with the understanding that said Bitting would retain out of the proceeds an amount sufficient to pay the sum he had advanced, and would remit the balance to said firm; that under such agreement a sum of money amounting to about $300,000 was handled by said Bitting, as trustee. The bill then shows a list of assets acquired by the firm, together with the amount of liabilities. It is further alleged that respondent Treadaway has removed the books from the regular office of the company and declines to permit complainant to secure a statement from said books as to the liabilities and net worth, and has also excluded complainant from the management of any and all of the affairs of the partnership, pertaining to its liquidation and settlements, and refuses to make a division of the cash on hand or choses in action or any of the property belonging to the partnership, but retains possession of same, and is converting it to his own use. Complainant avers that he called upon N.K. Bitting in Georgia to get a statement of the affairs of the partnership as handled by him as trustee, and that while the said Bitting has in his possession papers and records showing the shipments of produce of said firm, yet he refused to permit complainant to inspect the records. The bill then contains a list of the property purchased by the partnership, the title to which was taken in the name of respondent Treadaway. It is further averred that the affairs of the partnership in so far as the same relate to the sale of its products and the collection therefor are complicated but that it will be shown on settlement that the firm was largely indebted to complainant, and that upon final settlement of the affairs of N.K. Bitting it will be shown...