Court Opinion

ID: 9826292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:43:57.643537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:59.964063
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Fraser,
I concur in the result. It seems to me that it is a dangerous proposition;'a surviving partner has the absolute right to sell the real estate of the partnership arid give, good title to it. There are no limitations of the power set forth in the majority opinion. That makes the right unrestricted and absolute. The danger of such rule *251is apparent in this case. The owner of only 8 per cent, interest died. It might easily have been the other way. So we are putting it in the hands of a man who owns only an eight per cent, interest in a partnership to sell all of the real estate under what may be a false pretense of raising money to pay debts. It is suggested that the surviving partner may apply to the Court to sanction the sale and thereby get protection. It may be, that protection is needed for the estate of the deceased partner. If the surviving partner is not financially responsible, he does not need the protection of judicial proceedings and will not be likely to seek it. When the estate of the deceased partner needs protection, it is not likely to get it. If it does not need it, it will probably get it. In this case it is found that it is the interest of the, 8 per cent, deceased partner that needs protection from the 92 per cent, interest, and provision is made for the protection of the 8 per cent, interest. If, however, the surviving partners have the absolute right of sale, then by what right may the Court abridge that right?
Bowman v. Bailey, 20 S. C., 553
“It may be laid down as a general proposition, that, if real estate is purchased by two or more parties, and paid for out of partnership funds, and held for partnership purposes, it will be regarded in law as held by the several partners as tenants in common, yet, in equity, it is so far regarded in the light of personalty as to be subject, under an implied trust,, to be sold and applied, if necessary, for the payment of the partnership debts. Nor can the widow of one of such partners claim dower out of any part of such estate, except such as may not be required for the. payment of the partnership debts. Of that she may claim her dower both at law and in equity.
When a partner dies, his interest in the real estate of the copartnership descends to his heirs at law, subject to the right of dower in the surplus. The surviving partner or partners are not made a tribunal for divesting the heir of his inheritance or the widow of her dower. When it is said that equity may treat the realty as personalty, it means *252the Court of equity, and then only when those who' are entitled to the legal estate are before the Court.
If the law be as stated in the majority opinion, then co-partnerships are very dangerous. ■ It is said that a man can protect himself by being careful in the selection of his partners or forming no partnership at all. The most careful are sometimes deceived. It often happens that men are copartners who do not know it, or even when they have tried to prevent it. It is the nature of the contract and not the purpose of the, parties that determines the question as to whether the parties to a contract are partners or not.