Stanley & Gravitt v. Roberts Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stanley & Gravitt v. Roberts Bros.

121 S.E. 878, 31 Ga. App. 746, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 160

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1924

Docket15167

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 878 (Stanley & Gravitt v. Roberts Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanley & Gravitt v. Roberts Bros., 121 S.E. 878, 31 Ga. App. 746, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 160 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Where, without notice to creditors, a partnership is dissolved by the retirement of one of the partners, and the continuing partner agrees to assume the debts of the firm, and liability of each partner to creditors of the firm remains the same as before the dissolution, although as between the copartners themselves the dissolution agreement is enforceable. Richards v. Butler, 65 Ga. 593.

(a) Where actual notice of such a dissolution agreement and of the terms thereof is subsequently given to creditors, the retiring partner becomes, as to all creditors with such notice, a mere surety for his copartner, and must thereafter be so treated by all creditors with such notice, even though they were not parties to the dissolution agreement. Preston v. Garrard, 120 Ga. 689 (48 S. E. 118, 102 Am. St. Rep. 124, 1 Ann. Cas. 724); Grigg v. Empire State Chemical Co., 17 Ga. App. 385 (87 S. E. 149).

(5) But where a creditor is himself a party to such a dissolution agreement, expressly agreeing to release the retiring partner from and to look solely to the continuing partner for the payment of the firm’s debt, and in pursuance thereof the retiring partner delivers to the continuing partner the entire interest and equity of the former in the firm’s assets, the contract is binding and enforceable against copartners and the creditor alike, the undertaking of each party constituting a sufficient consideration to support the undertakings of the others. Civil Code (1910), § 4242.

2. The defendant Gravitt and the defendant partnership having pleaded a defense of the character last above indicated (which, as against a demurrer thereto, must be taken as true), the court erred in striking the original plea, and in disallowing the proffered plea, on the ground that the alleged release was a mere nudum pactum. The subsequent proceedings were nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. Where, without notice to creditors, a partnership is dissolved by the retirement of one of the partners, and the continuing partner agrees to assume the debts of the firm, and liability of each partner to creditors of the firm remains the same as before the dissolution, although as between the copartners themselves the dissolution agreement is enforceable. Richards v. Butler, 65 Ga. 593.

(a) Where actual notice of such a dissolution agreement and of the terms thereof is subsequently given to creditors, the retiring partner becomes, as to all creditors with such notice, a mere surety for his copartner, and must thereafter be so treated by all creditors with such notice, even though they were not parties to the dissolution agreement. Preston v. Garrard, 120 Ga. 689 (48 S. E. 118, 102 Am. St. Rep. 124, 1 Ann. Cas. 724); Grigg v. Empire State Chemical Co., 17 Ga. App. 385 (87 S. E. 149).

(5) But where a creditor is himself a party to such a dissolution agreement, expressly agreeing to release the retiring partner from and to look solely to the continuing partner for the payment of the firm’s debt, and in pursuance thereof the retiring partner delivers to the continuing partner the entire interest and equity of the former in the firm’s assets, the contract is binding and enforceable against copartners and the creditor alike, the undertaking of each party constituting a sufficient consideration to support the undertakings of the others. Civil Code (1910), § 4242.

2. The defendant Gravitt and the defendant partnership having pleaded a defense of the character last above indicated (which, as against a demurrer thereto, must be taken as true), the court erred in striking the original plea, and in disallowing the proffered plea, on the ground that the alleged release was a mere nudum pactum. The subsequent proceedings were nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 878, 31 Ga. App. 746, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-gravitt-v-roberts-bros-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack