Siler v. Barber

29 S.W.2d 829, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 641
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 6, 1930·No. No. 1981.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

WALKER, J.

Appellant and appellee R. S. Barber formed a partnership for the purpose of wrecking certain old ships anchored in the Neches River. After this work was done they continued their partnership for the purpose of manufacturing crates. Appellant brought this suit against R. S. Barber for an accounting. It was his contention that appellee had charge of the books of the partnership and received and paid out the funds of the partnership, had charge of the assets of the partnership, and that at the winding up of the partnership business appellee was due him from the partnership assets in excess of $5,000. It was the contention of appellee that the partnership assets were insufficient to pay the partnership debts, and that appellant was due tíim a balance. The trial was to the court without a *830 jury, with, judgment for appellee against appellant for $80.76, from which appellant has duly prosecuted his appeal. Conclusions of law and fact were filed in support of the judgment.

On motion of appellant, appellee filed, prior to' announcement of ready for trial, a detailed account of the partnership business, to which appellant duly excepted, and much testimony was received in support of his exceptions. However, assignments are urged only against the findings of the court on the following issues: First: Appellant charged that appellee had appropriated to his use certain sdws belonging to the partnership of the value of $32.13, one belt of the value of $75, and a second belt of the value of $79.32. The account, in fact, showed credit for the $79.32 belt. We think appellant showed that appel-lee appropriated, with or without his consent, the saws of the value of $32.13 and the belt of the value of $75. In filing his account ap-pellee listed many invoices without explaining in detail what they were for, for instance, invoice No. 2, $16.32; invoice No. 10, $860.00; invoice No. 11, $64.82. No invoices corresponded with the value of the saws in the sum of $32.13 nor of the value of the belt in the sum of $75. But there was no testimony that these items were not in fact included in some of the invoices. Appellee téstified that the account as filed was correct. On this statement the trial court concluded as follows:

“I further find that W. S. Siler has failed to prove that R. S. Barber and Barber Lumber & Mfg. Oo. did not give the partnership credit for the sum of $32.13 for a saw and material claimed to have been appropriated to the use of R. S. Barber and Barber Lumber & Mfg. Oo.; that various items of credit appear upon the account above approved and W. S. Si-ler has. not shown that such credits do not cover and include the value of the saws to have been appropriated to the use of R. S. Barber and Barber Lumber & Mfg. Co.”

We think the trial court gave the correct weight and construction to the testimony on these issues by refusing to find that the value of these items was not included in the account filed. Second: Appellant contends that the court erred in charging against the partnership the item of $1,200 as salary for -R. S. Barber and the item of $600 as the reasonable rental value of certain premises owned by Barber, but used by the partnership for storage purposes. Appellant testified that R. S. Barber was to give his services to the partnership free of charge, and was to furnish premises for storage purposes free of charge. He testified further that he continued managing the partnership as per the partnership, agreement until it ceased business, and its affairs were practically wound up. On these issues Barber testified as follows:

“As to the agreement with reference to my services to the partnership and any compensation therefor, I will say in the beginning it was the understanding that Mr. Siler was to attend to the dismantling of the ships and sell the lumber, and give it his whole attention, on a salary. I wasn’t supposed to have anything to do or bother about it. It looked like a small affair when we started in, but it lasted a good long time and it wound up by me having to go up and ship out the timber and keep the thieves from taking it off. I had to make several trips off in selling goods and doing collections, along towards the last;

I don’t remember how many, but that is the truth; I made the trips away out in West Texas trying to make collections on bad accounts that Mr. Siler had made. It really took a great deal of my time doing it, and took me away from my business. I do not have any way of stating approximately the percentage of my time that the partnership of Barber & Siler required. It was necessary, after Mr. Siler left, for me to look after the affairs of the partnership or let it go to the bad. Just like the case of those timbers up there, I heard they were stealing them, and they had been up there long enough for the weeds to grow up that high on top of them (indicating) and they had got to taking them down the river. About collecting these bills that we had sold long prior, I thought it was best to go and collect them, and I did it the best I could; finally wound it up, make compromises and one thing and another. With reference to the purchase of things for the partnership, nails and equipment, and machinery, it was not necessary for-me to give any of my time: I didn’t give that much time, to my sorrow; there was a great deal of surplus stuff bought' that we had to junk off around here, sell off the best we could.

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

Siler v. Barber, 29 S.W.2d 829, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 641 (Tex. Ct. App. 1930).

29 S.W.2d 829 (Siler v. Barber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greenberg v. Alter Company
124 N.W.2d 438 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1963)
Meier v. Murphy
207 S.W.2d 947 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1948)
Bradford v. Bradford
172 S.W.2d 365 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)