Case Name: John Murrell, Sr., et al. vs. Mary E. Murrell and Thomas W. Fuller, Tutor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-10
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 1233
Docket Number: No. 61
Parties: John Murrell, Sr., et al. vs. Mary E. Murrell and Thomas W. Fuller, Tutor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 1233–1243

Head Matter:
No. 61.
John Murrell, Sr., et al. vs. Mary E. Murrell and Thomas W. Fuller, Tutor.
The fact that the appeal bond is signed by only one Of several appellants, does not vitiate the appeal, in as much as, under the settled jurisprudence of the .State, such bond is valid even if not signed by the appellant.
A partnership from which the parties have excluded some of their respective property, is not an universal partnership under our Code.
An act of universal partnership must be registered in the Mortgage office, and the registry is necessary, even between the parties, to give such character to the partnership.
A partner who, in violation of the act of partnership, enters into another firm, does not thereby give the right to his original co-partner to claim a share in the profits of the new firm. The violation of the agreement may give rise to an action for damages; but, in as' much as the said original co-partner could not be held, without his consent, for the debts of the new firm, he cannot claim that he was made a partner therein, even unaware, on the ground that the original partnership was an universal one.
A partner is estopped, in the liquidation of the partnership, from denying to the prejudice of his co-partner any of the entries in the boohs of the firm, unless he charges and proves error.
A elation enpaiement, made by a partner to his own wife, oí the property of the firm, in satisfaction of her claim against the firm for her paraphernal funds held by it, is legal and. valid.
APPEAL from the Second Judicial District Court, parish of Webster-Drew, J.
J. C. Egan, O. E. McDonald and W. G. McDonald, for Plaintiffs and Appellants:
First — Every partner may, without the consent of his partners, enter into a partnership for the share he has in the partnership. G. O. 2871; 24 An. 317; 16 An. 418.
Second — There must be at least two persons- to every contract, and one person cannot act as agent to two persons and make a sale with himself for them. 2 R. 556; 6 L. 407; 11 M. B. 298; C. O. 1798.
Third — In order that the wife can make a valid purchase for herself with her paraphernal ■ ' property, she must have a separate administration of her paraphernal funds. 20 An. 531; 21 An. 343; 18 An. 105, 588.
Fourth — The use of Mrs. Murrell's paraphernal property belonged to her husband, and the firm owes her nothing for it. 21 An. 343, 344, 345; 18 An. 105, 588; 16 An. 290.
Fifth — The defendants claim sale of cotton, the onus is on them to prove a valid giving in payment.
Sixth — The entries show no elements of a contract.
Seventh — The entries are not correct in date.
Eighth — To have any effect against John Murrell they should be shown to have been made at the date they bear and during the existence of the partnership.
Hinth — It is not probable 1-hat a husband who was administering the property of his wife prudently, would invest her money in cotton on Bed Biver.
Tenth — 'We are to presume that he would be as prudent in administering his wife’s property as the partnership business, and if he refused to take cotton for claims due the partnership, as he did, he would not at that time take cotton for his wife’s claim.
J. D. & JT. Watlcins. for Defendants and Appellees:
First — Plaintiff basis his claim to share in the commission house of Bawlins & Murrell upon the partnership articles of I. Murrell & Bro., dated in 1848. Plaintift’s petition and oath as a witness so states. Partnership of I. Murrell & Bro. was confined to Claiborne parish. The business of Bawlins & Murrell was conducted in New .Orleans. The first was planting and a retail business; the second was a commission business.
Plaintiff's judicial declarations amount to Fall proof against them. B. C. C. 2291; 4 B. 457 ; 6 A. 397; 13 An. 369; 15 An. 676 ; 16 An. 22; 24 An. 300.
Second — Plaintiff and defendant made all their partnership agreements in writing, and in the first one stipulated that any change should be in writing.
Parol evidence cannot be admitted against or beyond these writings. B. C. C. 2276 and 2236 ; Story on Partnership, See. 278.
Third — John Murrell was a planting partner with Isaac Murrell in Claiborne; this did not make him a partner in Bawlins & Murrell in New Orleans. A partner of my partner i», not my partner. PC. D. 1082, Ho. 3. .
Fourth — The agreement of 8th March, 1848, limited the firm of I. Murrell &Bro. to six years, and didnot prevent I. Murrell from joining Bawlins in 1866. After the six years, it was a partnership at will and might be dissolved, or I. Murrell might withdraw at pleasure. Smith’s Mercantile Law, p. 54; Story on Partnership, Sec. 279.
Fifth — Entries in partnership books at the time of the transaction are conclusive on the partners, The partners are mutual agents of each other, and the entry an account rendered of the transaction. 1 PC. D. 511, Ho. 6 and Ho. 8.
Sixth — A partnership is a commutative contract. B. C. C. 2301. Something must be put in by each partner — credit, skill, industry, money or property, and profits and losses must be.shared. B. C.C. 2814; Smith’s Mercantile Law, pp. 43, 44 and 50,52, 54; Bonvier's Dictionary, Partner, pp. 285, 286, 291.
There must he an agreement to be partners, otherwise there is no partnership. 30 An. 631.
There must be a contract, and each partner must put in something to form a partnership. • Story on Partnership, Sec. 2; Story, Sec. 2, paragraph 3.
Some important ingredients said to constitute its essence, a contract. Story, Secs. 3, 4, 5, 6, and p. 19, Sec. 15. Some common stock must "be brought in by each party — money, goods, effects, or other property, or labor, or skill — something must be contributed.

Opinion:
Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Poché, J.
Appellees move for the dismissal of this appeal bn the ground that John Murrell, Sr., alone has signed the appeal bond, and his co-plaintiffs, his children, acting in these matters as the legal representatives of their deceased mother, and necessary parties in this appeal, have not signed said bond, or furnished any appeal bond.
The record shows that the appeal was prayed for by John Murrell, Sr., and his co-plaintiffs, William C. Murrell and Lucinda Murrell, wife of N. C. Walker, through her legal minor heirs represented by their tutor, N. C. Walker; that the names of all the plaintiffs are embodied in the appeal bond, as appellants and obligors, and that the sureties bind themselves for these two plaintiffs as well as for John Murrell, Sr. Under the well settled rule of our.jurisprudence, holding an appeal bond, even when not signed at all by the appellant, as sufficient in law to sustain an appeal, we cannot conceive how this bond is vitiated because it is signed by one of the three appellants alone, when by the tenor thereof, it distinctly appears to be the bond of all three. If not signed by any of the appellants, it would have been good (Louque's Digest, page 32, No. 19);' and it follows that the fact of its being signed by one of the appellants only, cannot be held as excluding-the other appellants from any participation therein, or any responsibility thereunder. A different case would be presented if the bond had been made in the name of one of the plaintiffs, without mention, in the body of the instrument, of the other plaintiffs. In such a case, it would have been the act of that plaintiff alone, and could have conferred no benefit, and entailed no responsibility on the other plaintiff's. 26 An. 356. We think that all the plaintiffs are properly before us as appellants, and, therefore, conclude that the motion to dismiss cannot prevail, and hence it is overruled.