Watson v. Williamson

Decision Date04 November 1903
Citation76 S.W. 793
PartiesWATSON v. WILLIAMSON.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from Kimble County Court; Jno. S. Durst, Judge.

Suit by W. A. Williamson against J. D. Watson. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

M. E. Blackburn and J. B. Randolph, for appellant. Horace E. Wilson, for appellee.

FLY, J.

This is a suit to obtain the dissolution of a partnership, instituted by appellee against appellant, and for appointment of a receiver. The court rendered judgment dissolving the partnership and in favor of appellee for $178, and that the property of the partnership, consisting of an abstract index book, be sold by the receiver, and the proceeds be applied to the payment of the amount due appellee, the balance to be equally divided between the partners.

However defective the judgment may be on the ground of uncertainty in fixing the amount to be paid the receiver at a "reasonable fee," that matter is eliminated by a remitter upon the part of the receiver of all fees to which he might become entitled.

As before stated, this is an application for an accounting between partners, and for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the property, which consists of a book of abstracts of title. It is contended that the only property belonging to the partnership cannot be sold, because it is exempt property. If an abstract of title is exempt property, it could not be sold at the instance of any third party; but we cannot extend the doctrine as to exempt property so far as to hold that, if it is incapable of partition, it cannot be sold in case of an accounting between partners. To so hold would render impossible a division of exempt partnership effects that were in themselves incapable of partition, and have the effect of defeating a dissolution and accounting at the instance of an injured or aggrieved partner.

It was shown by the evidence that appellant collected $400 due the partnership, and that appellee collected $20, and that $24 was paid for stationery for the partnership. Deducting these sums from the $400 collected by appellant, would leave $356 to be divided equally between the partners. It follows that the court did not err in rendering judgment for appellee for $178, one-half of the sum of $356. The same result is obtained if $420, the amount collected by both partners, has deducted from it $24 expenses, and the balance is divided by two and from the one-half falling to appellee the sum of $20 is deducted.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ballweber v. Kern
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 21 Julio 1917
    ... ... Co. v ... Sweny, 57 Ohio St. 169, 48 N.E. 879; Hume v. John B ... Hood Camp Confederate Veterans, Tex. Civ. App. , 69 S.W ... 643; Watson v. Williamson, Tex. Civ. App. , 76 S.W ... 793; Rhea v. Gibson, 10 Gratt. 215; Loveland v ... Rand, 200 Mass. 143, 85 N.E. 948; Luke v ... ...
  • International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Cooper
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 2 Junio 1927
    ...Co. v. Brigance, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 15, 128 S. W. 919; Texas Building Co. v. Reed (Tex. Civ. App.) 169 S. W. 212; Watson v. Williamson (Tex. Civ. App.) 76 S. W. 793; Railway Co. v. Measles, 81 Tex. 478, 17 S. W. 124; Railway Co. of Texas v. Gentry (Tex. Civ. App.) 98 S. W. 226. This cause do......
  • Luke v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 1911
    ... ... Vandeveer, 33 Neb. 735, ... 51 N.W. 127; in Ohio Huber Mfg. Co. v. Sweny, 57 ... Ohio St. 169, 48 N.E. 879; and in Texas, Watson v ... Williamson [Tex. Civ. App.], 76 S.W. 793). According to ... some of these decisions, a second application for a new trial ... may be made ... ...
  • Fulton v. Finch
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 2 Agosto 1960
    ...Investment Corp. v. Wiggins, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W.2d 304; Union City Transfer v. Kenna, Tex.Civ.App., 210 S.W.2d 431; Watson v. Williamson, Tex.Civ.App., 76 S.W. 793; Hume v. John B. Hood Camp Confederate Veterans, Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W. It is significant that while Rule 329-b provides that......
  • 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