Russell v. Hayden

78 So. 871, 201 Ala. 517, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 99
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided April 11, 1918·No. 6 Div. 653.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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

78 So. 871 (Russell v. Hayden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Turner v. Rainey
89 So. 2d 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Young v. Dean
44 So. 2d 12 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)
Cunningham v. Staples
113 So. 590 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Russell v. Hayden
95 So. 34 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Heller v. Berlin
95 So. 10 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Williams v. Williams
89 So. 272 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)