Washington v. Washington
| Decision Date | 17 April 1895 |
| Citation | 31 S.W. 88 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON v. WASHINGTON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Cooke county; D. E. Barrett, Judge.
Action by Mollie Washington and others against J. R. Washington. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Davis & Garnett, for appellant. Yancey Lewis, for appellees.
J. R. Washington, Jr., son of appellant, died January 8, 1892, leaving his wife, Mollie Washington, one of the appellees, but no children or their descendants surviving him. This suit was instituted by the wife against her husband's father, to adjust and settle a partnership alleged to have existed between the latter and the deceased husband in certain personal property (horses, cattle, and grain) described in the petition. Appellant answered by general denial and by a special denial of the partnership. There was evidence introduced which tended to show that there was no partnership, and that all the property belonged to appellant individually. There was also evidence which tended to show that much of the property belonged to the son individually. There was also evidence which tended to show a partnership between the father and son, without an explanation as to their respective interests. There was also evidence from which the jury might have concluded that there was a partnership in which the father contributed the original capital and the son the labor and skill in attending to the business, and no explanation made as to the manner in which the capital and profits were to be divided. There was also evidence which tended to show a partnership in which the father contributed the original capital, intending, however, to give his son a one-half interest therein, and that the business was conducted upon this basis to the time of the death of the latter.
The court instructed the jury, in effect, if they found that a partnership existed between the father and son, to find in favor of the widow of the latter one-half of the value of all property owned by the firm at the time of the dissolution (less debts, etc.), and refused some special charges requested by appellant, presenting one or more phases of the evidence above set forth. We think this was error. A settlement of this kind is to be made according to the terms of the partnership agreement, whatever they may be; and the burden is upon the one alleging the partnership to show these. If the evidence shows an agreement to enter into a partnership, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Blasengame
...Co., 79 Tex. 179, 15 S. W. 259, 23 Am. St. Rep. 327; Morris v. Kasling, 79 Tex. 141, 15 S. W. 226, 11 L. R. A. 398; Washington v. Washington (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 88; Granrud v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 59 S. W. 841. On another trial the question propounded to appellee and complained of in ......
-
Arnold v. Green, 13144.
...of the Court's findings, the findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Reversal should be directed in either instance. 1 Washington v. Washington, Tex.Civ. App., 31 S.W. 88; Clemmer v. Price, 59 Tex.Civ.App. 84, 125 S.W. 604; Chauncey v. Gambill, Tex.Civ.App., 126 S.W. 2d 775; 23 Tex.Jur., 71......
-
Smith v. Rickerts, 3503.
...property he acquires, is well settled. Schuster v. Jewelry Co., 79 Tex. 183, 15 S. W. 259, 23 Am. St. Rep. 327; Washington v. Washington et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 88; Duveneck v. Kutzer, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 43 S. W. 541; Granrud et al. v. Rea, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 59 S. W. 841; ......
-
Granrud v. Rea
...the fact that he contracted with her for them was evidence tending to establish, as against him, her right to do so. Washington v. Washington (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 88. In Miss Tomine's case the court instructed the jury, in effect, that, as the hiring was by the month, she could only re......