Tsimpides v. Tsimpides

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation241 Ala. 46,1 So.2d 17
Docket Number6 Div. 541.
PartiesTSIMPIDES v. TSIMPIDES.
Decision Date27 February 1941

1 So.2d 17

241 Ala. 46

TSIMPIDES
v.
TSIMPIDES.

6 Div. 541.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 27, 1941


Rehearing Denied March 27, 1941.

[241 Ala. 47] C.D. Comstock, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Lange, Simpson, Brantley & Robinson and Ormond Somerville, Jr., all of Birmingham, for appellee.

BOULDIN, Justice.

The bill was filed by appellant to dissolve and settle a partnership. By final decree on pleadings and proof, complainant was denied relief and the bill dismissed.

The litigation is between two brothers, natives of Greece.

Admittedly they engaged in a partnership business for many years. No written articles of a co-partnership existed. The duration of the partnership, and the scope and terms thereof, rest upon parol evidence. Numerous written documents are made exhibits. In the main, they tend to support the contention of respondent.

The controlling evidence consists of the testimony of many witnesses heard orally before the trial court. This testimony, especially that of the two brothers, covering the main issues, is irreconcilable. The record presents a case peculiarly within the rule that a strong presumption must be indulged in favor of the finding of the trial judge; that his conclusion is not to be disturbed unless clearly wrong and unjust.

A review of the evidence would serve no good purpose. Suffice to say, indulging the presumption applicable in such case, we are of opinion the decree should be, and is, affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, C.J., and FOSTER and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Aiken v. Barnes, 1 Div. 230.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Abril 1946
    ...State ex rel. Sanford, 235 Ala. 329, 179 So. [25 So.2d 850.] 233; Mitchell v. Kinney, 242 Ala. 196, 5 So.2d 788; Tsimpides v. Tsimpides, 241 Ala. 46, 1 So.2d 17; Berry v. Howell, 242 Ala. 138, 5 So.2d 405; Randolph v. Randolph, 245 Ala. 689, 18 So.2d 555; Scruggs v. Beason, 246 Ala. 405, 20......
  • Exxon Corp. v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RES.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 20 Diciembre 2002
    ...R. Evid. In the case now before us, however, Broome's advice to Exxon is not "part of the professional business of an attorney." Sawyer, 241 Ala. at 46, 1 So.2d at 27. Therefore, it is not within the ambit of the Exxon seems to argue that the Broome letter prejudiced the defense by implying......
  • Webb v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 6 Div. 824.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 20 Marzo 1941
    ...110 Ala. 48, 20 So. 468; Lawson v. Mobile Electric Co., 204 Ala. 318, 85 So. 257; Dorough v. Alabama Power Co., 200 Ala. 605, 76 So. 963. [1 So.2d 17.] "And in such circumstances counsel have the right to argue to the jury the issue of the credibility of the witnesses. * * * " See the same ......
  • Hale v. Hale, 6 Div. 546
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 5 Noviembre 1953
    ...this case after a careful study of the record. Accordingly we are not willing to disturb the decree of the court. Tsimpides v. Tsimpides, 241 Ala. 46, 1 So.2d The decree of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT