Case ID: ala_210/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SOMERVILLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(98 South. 803)
    HELLER v. BERLIN.
    (6 Div. 959.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Jan. 17, 1924.)
    Partnership c&wkey;327(I) — Bill for accounting held sufficiently to allege sharing losses. .
    In suit for dissolution of partnership and accounting, averment that the sum of money and merchandise contributed by complainant and defendant were in respective proportions of two to one, and complainant owned as a partner a two-thirds interest and defendant the other one-third, and that liabilities were to be borne by complainant and defendant in the same proportion as their respective interests, sufficiently alleged sharing of losses.
    <g=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-N UMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Bessemer Division; J. C. B. Gwinn, Judge.
    Bill in equity by Abe Berlin against A. M. Heller, for dissolution of partnership and accounting. From a decree overruling demurrer to the bill, respondent appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 208 Ala. 640, 95 South. 10.
    These averments were added to the bill by amendment, after reversal of the cause:
    “And complainant says that the said sums of money and merchandise contributed to the said partnership business by your orator and the said Heller were in the respective proportions of two to one, and your orator owned as a partner in said business a two-thirds interest therein, and the said Heller owned the other one-tliird interest therein, and that the liabilities of said partnership were to be borne by complainant and the said Heller in the same proportion as their respective said interests in said partnership.”
    Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellant. '
    The amendment does meet the requirement, and the bill is insufficient. Tutwiler v. Dugger, 127 Ala. 191, 28 South. 677; Mayrant v. Marston-Brown & Co., 67 Ala. 453; Pulliam v. Schimpf, 100 Ala. 362, 14 South. 488; Hill v. Hill, 205 Ala. 33, 88 South. 224 ; 30 Cyc. 380.
    Goodwyn &Ross, of Bessemer, and Louis Silberman, of Birmingham, for ■ appellee.
    The bill contains every necessary averment, and is sufficient. Heller v. Berlin, 208 Ala. 640, 95 South. 10; Gillett v. Higgins, 142 Ala. 444, 38 South. 664, 4 Ann. Cas. 459; Williams v. Williams, 206 Ala. 125, 89 South. 272; Hill v. Hill, 205 Ala. 33, 88 South. 224; Moore v. Price, 116 Ala. 247, 22 South. 531; Russell v. Hayden, 201 Ala.' 517, 78 South. 871. .
   SOMERVILLE, J.

The appellee, Berlin, filed his bill of complaint to establish a partnership between himself and the respondent, Heller, and for a dissolution and an accounting of the partnership business. On a former appeal it was held, on demurrer, that the bill was insufficient in that it did not show the respective interests of the alleged partners, and also in that it did not show an essential of the partnership relation — a sharing of the losses suffered in the operation of the business. Heller v. Berlin, 208 Ala. 640, 95 South. 10. On remandmemt the bill was amended in both of those respects, and the demurrer filed thereto was overruled. Appellant’s contention is that the amendments are not sufficient, and that the bill as amended is subject to the same grounds of demurrer originally sustained. We think, however, that the amendments are clearly sufficient, and that, as amended, the bill is not subject to any of the grounds of demurrer assigned.

The decree overruling the demurrer will therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.