Opinion ID: 1692738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Joseph Bateh, Sr.:

Text: (At the time the $20,000 share certificate was offered to Bateh, Sr., for his boys, the B-D Company was financially insecure.) Morton came up to him and said, Here is preferred stock worth $3.00 per share. It was about 5 P.M. and the office was closing. He replied to Morton, I don't want preferred stock; but I took it home with me and I read it, and I found out the stock was $1.50 a share and not $3.00. I gave it back to Morton the next morning after I read it at home. He told Ms. Cole his children were buying the $30,000 worth of stock for themselves. The evidence also discloses the following: Joe and Fred at no time made any request for a note or other evidence of indebtedness for their loan to B-D. From time to time the B-D Company had made investments for the Bateh family. Sometime between 1959 and 1969 the Bateh family had bought stock in the Ozark Motel where the procedure was to give B-D money in return for stocks. B-D not only made investments in its own name but that of members of the Bateh family as well. The partnership was dissolved on May 14, 1970, by court order, and the corporate stock owned by B-D was divided equally between Brown and Bateh, Sr. (For a more detailed history of this case, including other provisions of the trial Court's decrees in two separate actions and their reversals, see Bateh v. Brown, 289 Ala. 695, 271 So.2d 830 (1972); and Bateh v. Brown, 289 Ala. 699, 271 So.2d 833 (1972).) The issues raised on this appeal are whether the trial Court erred in: (1) granting Brown's motion for consolidation of Joe and Fred's cases; (2) refusing their first requested charge which said in effect that since the stock was purchased with their money and was registered in the name of Brown, there was a presumption of a resulting trust arising in their favor; (3) refusing to give their third requested chargeevery partner in a partnership is not only a principal but also an authorized agent who, while acting within the scope of partnership business, can effectively contract for and bind the partnership; (4) orally instructing the jury that if they find appellants are entitled to a judgment for the stock, then they should decide whom the judgment would be against and the number of shares appellants would be entitled to receive, since this was highly prejudicial due to the element of confusion it created; and (5) allowing a jury verdict contrary to the preponderance of the evidence to stand.