Russell v. Hayden

Supreme Court of Alabama

Russell v. Hayden

78 So. 871, 201 Ala. 517, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 99

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 11, 1918

Docket6 Div. 653.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 78 So. 871 (Russell v. Hayden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell v. Hayden, 78 So. 871, 201 Ala. 517, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 99 (Ala. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

[1-3] No writing, nor any particular form, is necessary to the creation of a contract of partnership. Like most other contracts, it may be implied from conduct and circumstances. Causler v. Wharton, 62 Ala. 358. But a contract, express or implied, *518 is necessary, and the terms and conditions of the alleged partnership between appellee and appellants’ testator, whether express or implied, the respective interests of the alleged partners, should have been averred in terms or in substance in appellee’s bill for its settlement. Our decisions and the authorities generally so hold (Tutwiler v. Dugger, 127 Ala. 191, 28 South. 677; Little v. Snedecor, 52 Ala. 167), and we have discovered no reason why the rule should not be followed in this cause.

The decree overruling the demurrer of appellants to appellee’s bill will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELIAN and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

[1-3] No writing, nor any particular form, is necessary to the creation of a contract of partnership. Like most other contracts, it may be implied from conduct and circumstances. Causler v. Wharton, 62 Ala. 358. But a contract, express or implied, *518 is necessary, and the terms and conditions of the alleged partnership between appellee and appellants’ testator, whether express or implied, the respective interests of the alleged partners, should have been averred in terms or in substance in appellee’s bill for its settlement. Our decisions and the authorities generally so hold (Tutwiler v. Dugger, 127 Ala. 191, 28 South. 677; Little v. Snedecor, 52 Ala. 167), and we have discovered no reason why the rule should not be followed in this cause.

The decree overruling the demurrer of appellants to appellee’s bill will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELIAN and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 871, 201 Ala. 517, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-hayden-ala-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack