Court Opinion

ID: 9550663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:39:56.693883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:06.547933
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I disagree with the majority opinion. We have this sort of situation here. A man by the name of E. L. Young owned the Eddie Young Royal Crown Shows that made State Fairs in the mild months of the year. His wife, Dolly Young, assisted him in the business. She insisted on being made a partner. On March 23, 1951, they en*849tered into a partnership agreement. On November 13, 1951, E. L. Young sold all his interest in the partnership to Dolly Young. They had been divorced on March 28, 1951. The plaintiff had furnished the insurance for the Royal Crown Shows. E. L. Young gave his personal note for what was owed for insurance prior to the partnership agreement. Dolly Young never signed this note. When Dolly Young received the bill of sale to the partnership property she assumed all the debts of the partnership. The amount owing the plaintiff was over $5,000. Dolly Young continued to get the insurance for the Royal Crown Shows from the plaintiff for the same protection that the partnership had gotten insurance. She continued to carry on the business under the same name. When the property was attached in Muskogee it was the same property that was under the partnership. The action was filed against E. L. Young and Dolly Young doing business as Royal Crown Shows. Dolly Young in her answer appeared for herself and in no other capacity.
The insurance in this case gave protection to Dolly Young. She was served and the attachment made when she was in charge of the property. In my opinion the service in this case was sufficient to bring into court both the partnership and the individual Dolly Young. No substantial question was raised as to correctness of the account. The only defense was that part of the bill was a partnership account and part individual. It should make no difference because the property was subject to attachment for both accounts. The fact that a partnership is a separate entity should make no difference because the individual partner’s property was liable for the debts of the partnership as well as for the individual’s obligation.
If the pleadings were not what they should have been, certainly the trial court should have allowed, in the furtherance of justice, the amendment of the pleadings to conform to the proof.
I believe that the rule is the better one which holds that when a person is named and served with process individually as a member of a partnership he is in court for all purposes both as an individual and as a partner. See Epstein & Bro. v. First National Bank of Tampa, 92 Fla. 796, 110 So. 354; Standard Oil Company of Pennsylvania v. Munday, 150 Pa.Super. 499, 28 A.2d 813; Radel v. Seib, 105 Pa.Super. 75, 159 A. 182.
Honest obligations should not be defeated on such a technicality as is raised in the majority opinion. I dissent.