Court Opinion

ID: 9827059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:05:57.077599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:21.881881
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Since the general manager of the plaintiff company filed a materialman’s lien for the company on the partnership effects, in which he swore that the account for which the note and mortgage herein sued on was executed was for material sold to the Trio Gasoline & Refining Company, and since the deed of trust in controversy taken by the plaintiff recited that the note sued on was for material and supplies furnished to the makers and the Trio Gasoline & Refining Company by the plaintiff, and since J. E. Allen, who was credit man of the plaintiff company while acting also as-a receiver, treated and acted upon the account in the same manner, and since P. C. Walker testified to the same effect, and since the plaintiff company entered into the composition settlement with other creditors of the partnership firm, in which they received more than their pro rata part of the partnership effects, on the claim made by them that the account was owing by the partnership, we fail to perceive how it can be said that the evidence did, not conclusively show that the debt for which Walker and wife executed the note and mortgage was a partnership debt.
While, according to some of the testimony of Walker, when he sold his interest in the partnership to Sears, Sears and the other members of the firm all assumed the partnership debts, and, according to other statements by the witness, Sears alone assumed Walker’s partnership liabilities, yet we think that that difference is immaterial, since the other members of the firm were already liable jointly and severally for those debts. The material fact was that Sears assumed Walker’s liability in part consideration for the sale of Walker’s partnership interest in the assets, and plaintiff was notified of that fact.
We think it immaterial whether or not the partnership account fell due at or about the time the note and mortgage in controversy was executed, and whether or not those instruments were executed by solicitation of plaintiff company, although Walker so testified' in effect without contradiction, since it was shown without controversy that those instruments were given to better secure the partnership debt of the Trio Gasoline & Refining- Company to plaintiff..
Counsel for appellant has misconceived the purport of the opinion written upon original hearing. They interpret that opinion as holding that our decision was based upon the theory that after Walker’s sale to Sears of his interest in the partnership, without consent of the 'other members of the firm, those members of the firm became the principal debtors and Walker only a surety therefor. While we mentioned that as one of the contentions of Walker, we did not base our decision upon that theory, as clearly appears from a careful reading of the opinion. Our decision was based solely upon our conclusion that the record showed without controversy that the composition settlement was with the creditors of the partnership firm, and made upon representation of the plaintiff that it was settling its dgbt upon the same basis that .all other creditors were settling, and that to allow the plaintiff later to reap additional benefits through 'a secret and undisclosed intention to hold Walker for the balance of its debt would be a fraud on such other creditors, which the courts will not countenance.
Motion for rehearing is overruled,