Hart v. Hart

Supreme Court of Iowa

Hart v. Hart

160 N.W.2d 438, 1968 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 894

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJuly 18, 1968

Docket52997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 160 N.W.2d 438 (Hart v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hart v. Hart, 160 N.W.2d 438, 1968 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 894 (iowa 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

RAWLINGS, Justice.

Plaintiff brought action at law on a promissory note. Trial jury unable to agree on verdict was discharged. Motions by plaintiff for judgment notwithstanding jury’s failure to agree, with alternate motion to adjudicate law points relative to instructions given were both overruled. *440 Plaintiff takes permissive appeal. We reverse.

According to the record this, in substance, is the factual situation here presented.

Plaintiff, John L. Hart, and defendant, E. Frank Hart, sometimes hereinafter referred to as John and Frank, respectively, are brothers.

Originally John and Dale E. Norton were partners, engaged in operation of a Chevrolet agency at Spencer. In 1939 John and Frank obtained the Spencer Ford franchise and commenced business under an oral arrangement as Hart Motors, a partnership.

Sometime in 1955 a written agreement was executed by the brothers. July 1, 1956, a new pact was prepared and signed. This last instrument provided the brothers would operate on a 50-50 basis, John to be manager, spending only the time he deemed necessary in supervisory work, and receive a salary of $1000 each month until June 30, 1963. It also provided if either partner withdrew the other would select and receive the first $85,000 in assets, remainder to be divided equally.

The partnership prospered, at one time holding assets having an appraised value of $880,000.

In 1957 the Spencer Chevrolet agency became available. With John’s help Frank sought and obtained it. In accord with an attendant demand by General Motors, John agreed to discontinue operation of the automobile business in Spencer and abandon use of the name “Hart” in connection with any car dealings.

An agreement providing for partial distribution of partnership property was then entered into which provided, in part, the 1956 agreement was to remain in effect.

After Frank commenced the Chevrolet operations he began urging termination of the 1956 compact. In 1958 papers providing for dissolution of the partnership were prepared but John refused to sign for these given reasons: (1) his monthly salary of $1000 would be terminated; (2) he was entitled to the first $85,000 in partnership assets since Frank was withdrawing; (3) there was owing to him, by agreement, an equal benefit in a $23,400 tax loss carryover resulting from acquisition of the Chevrolet agency; (4) he had suffered a business loss by abandonment of automobile dealings in Spencer and use of the name “Hart”.

Ultimately, on August 8, 1959, John signed the dissolution agreement. He contends this was done after extended negotiations relative to the four matters listed above, which culminated in a compromise under which Frank signed the note here in dispute.

Our order granting plaintiff leave to appeal provided in material part: “After full consideration it is felt that the application may properly be considered as asking authority to appeal in advance of final judgment from those of the trial court’s instructions to the jury given upon the trial of the case resulting in a hung jury which had the effect of limiting plaintiff’s recovery to the sum of $23,500 rather than $85,000, and interest, for which judgment was prayed, provided timely objection was made at the trial to the instructions referred to.

“Accordingly, permission is hereby granted plaintiff to appeal in advance of final judgment from so many of the trial court’s instructions as are above referred to.”

Consequently, regardless of errors assigned, we confine our review to recovery-limiting-jury-instructions 9, 11, 12 and 13, to each of which plaintiff made timely and appropriate objection.

The basic issue resultantly presented is whether trial court erred in treating the aforesaid reasons given by plaintiff for refusal to sign the partnership dissolution agreement as separate elements of consideration.

I. John’s action against Frank is based upon this instrument:

*441

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI