Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-16

drm the pialnuh owning t"Dt hf1s atN
the defendant ouethlfd interest 10 tne
5. ina capacity Of the ranch was 70 sup
mort 200 head 0f cattle.
~ Plaintiff OF no dine stocked the fa.,h
with his individual cattle 70 cNyVfu ~ ~
part OF the rapaciiy 0f the ranch or ms
taothirds interest therein.
4 f1amtin paid ont MS expenses for lni-
therein. firm ana Individual, 5000 Tho Ne.
PENDANT had no stock Nin TIE ranch tof
time except m 1881. so0n aftpr the pkfce.
ment between plulntin and himscii, ullflhE
which ne had 100 heifors therein. Tho irnl
had seventeen hulls ana Eve snddlr horses
in the pasture During toe co-pnfinefship
pigintiN placed rcttoin Improvements upeh
the house on the rnnuh Rrd alec uipn VIZ
fnrm thereon He also caused to he butt
three windmills and The digging OF three
wells on the ranch. To the Improvements
consisting iu the wells and wiudmills, tie
fendsnt Nsspnted, hut be lid not assent TO
the remaining in,pruyemcnts
T. The partnership was dissolved b. mu-
tuul consent Iuly !, iSoS.
o. The following Is pgrtnerhip property
Of the nrm " Brown & Cafhnrt' House.
except improvements put on BY piaiuuh,
horse lots aad COW lots. household nnd
-itchen furniture, except silver ana pinttd
ware one old wagon aud harness. five saddle
horses. fourteen bulls. three star whidnils
and fixtures. three pair pipe tongues, slN-
teen and one.half miles WIRE l.hSe iteo
Dcfes ~ land. leased 10 August D, less,
Gao acres Of land leased 10 July j, lSse $50
acres u Land. leased 10 Jen L. lSSp, $500
ncrss leased TO OFT. /, lSn. $40 ocr9s,
10. 'fhe land described IN plalntG's pc.
tition, namey. 1900 aor'e, he legal tiue
to which " ALLEGED by plaiutih 10 be 10
L. u. Carhnrt, and ihc conveyance vf Nhith
TO the nrm uf Brown a Carlart. plaiutln
seeks 10 have dccrccd by the c0urt. rs not
the partnership property,
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
Ten assignments OF error rcll,,i upon by
appellant complain ~ the action % the
court in overriding The general demurrer
90 The petition. ana Cight special exceptions
addressed thereto. Three " these special
exceptions relate 10 the relief sought by
appciic with reference to rertuin trncts or
land alleged by him 20 constitute partner.
ship property, As the court granted no
relief ON the allegations excepted 10 with
reference TO ths realty. any error con-
nitted by 81 In that connection becomcs
wholly immutCrial The remaining VAcep-
tlois. general aud special. except the hfth.
referred To Ia the assignments ~ error, We
dispose of with the rcinnri; that w our
opinion the petition cOntaius the nllega-
lions, the absence ~ which Is complained
Of 10 the exceptions. Tho hfth special CN-
ceptlon Is To the effect that the petition IS
dcfeciiye, because y ayers q meanlnE on
the articles OF partnership between plain
TIT and McClellNnd sud Carhart dinercnt
from that clearly expressed by the terms
and language ~ the said Instrument, and
thereby seeks To lgy predicate 10 intro
ducc oral testimony for tue purpose OF
varying the terms and meanlng OF The said
written contract" pluintlm In his petition
alleged, in eject that by the terms Of the
original contract entered Into between Car
hart. MctlCllund aud Irown, and which was
mnte part Of the petition. each party was
entitled to place upon the ranch aud In the
enclosure Individual stock equal Ia the
capacity of biz Interest IN the ranch" aud
was To bear "the expense Of opening fenc-
ing. leuslng buying or otherwise acquiring
lands unu operating aud carrying ca the
i'm nrpuUrlInn
ranch enclosure" The petition. after aver.
log that such were the tcrms the meaning
ana inIenunh OF tle coutract rs expressed
therein, proceeds with the allegation that
IN there be any ambiguity IN thc contract
''the Same Is latent and not patent" aud
may be eyWQined 10y T0rOl testimony, and
prays " the NOttract ie not fun enough tu
show The real Intention OF the parties that
IL be 80 reformed 90 to speak such inten.
ti1n,' We have alrenQy Ia the foregoing
conclusions OF fast SET out The contract re
fciTed TO. The concluding clause thereof
namely: I'm stocking said ranch no one
member shnll except by consent put thele-
on exceeding ouc.thlrd the capacity there.
OF as may loo determined By the nfui" be-
gets tie question presented by This Uxcep-
ton. one or the purposes OF the co.p0Il.
ngrship being. as declared npon the face
OF the contract. 20 stock the runch the con
Guiding clause, OE wc Interpret a.. inbicatea
that each party TO tho contract should hy
virtue Thereof. be emitted under ita terms
TO place upon the ranch and maiutnIn there.
on. at tho expense OF the arm stock IN pro.
portion to his interest therein. N. however.
We Doe Ia error In thus interpretiug tho
meaning or this clause II at most presents
such an ambiguity as can be explained hy ma
rol evidence I'd Wartono n Evidence. csc
ton 9iO.l There was. therefore no errur
IN overrnllng the special exception referred
TO.
The -. IL, II aud 10th assignments Of or
rur complain of the courts findings OF fact
which we have already set out We hnye
examined the evidence Upon which these
conclusions are founded and they are NOT
without support In the testimony. We do
not ieel authorized 10 disturb the findings
or the triad court. The remaining assIgr,.
mcnts embodied IN appellants bfief com.
plain OF the conclusion OF the Trial court
| That the def ndont should be- held limbo to
plaln'U. when under the fncts IL appeared
that the expenses Incurred ana us I'M.
pIovcInenm erected upon the ranch redound.
td 10 TIE exclusive heneht OF the Dlaintin
IL Is true that the defendant during do term
| ot ms partncrshipw ilh plaintiff received
| lltlc bcncut from the maintaining az thn
| ranch, IL appears. however thar orta nr
tue purposes Of the partnership WINS 10
adopt the language of appeleu's c1upseb
10 combine capital Ca establish a pasture
| ~ which each partner would be- entitled IN
| the extent Of his interest in Inc re1it, c,,'
| closed, TO pasture bis individual niacl, -
| Of TINS privilege plaintiff ayailed himself.
| u ne uefenNant did not ID was bia avn
| iaull' lie VIII not for that reason be nor
United TO Ignore the teilns OF his yoinn.
| lWl opngnuOn' nor can hp he heapl In
Sou,Dath o. result aS lnlQuitaDle which N
| obligation. va t''S
We are therefore of opinion that the ipor.
| ment should be affirmed and An Ia 50 w.
dered. (Slgned) ~
TAnIToN, CHIEF Justice.