Court Opinion

ID: 9831668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:16:36.755945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.858382
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion, for rehearing, appellees complain of the statement in our opinion that the original draft of the contract of partnership between appellees, appellant’s deceased father, Rufus Gage, Sr., and J. E. Roberts, contained no provision by which any one or more of the members of the partnership could force a dissolution of the firm prior to the expiration of the term of the contract by notice and offer to buy or sell as stipulated in the partnership contract finally executed.
In support of their contention, appellees call our attention to the language of appellant’s tenth assignment of error, from which it can be fairly inferred that the original draft of the contract did contain a provision for dissolution of the partnership prior to the expiration of the term stated in the contract, and the only addition made in the final contract to the original draft of this provision was the insertion of the clause, "which shall not be less than twice the earnings of the last preceding year.”
We inferred from the testimony of Mr. Roberts, set out in our opinion, that the original draft of the contract contained no dissolution provision of any kind, and so stated in our opinion. We did not and do not now regard the fact as at all material in determining the question upon which we reversed the judgment of the trial court, but, since appellees’ counsel deem the matter material, we make the correction in our opinion as above indicated.
Appellees have also filed a motion to certify to the Supreme Court the question involved in our decision reversing the judgment in this case.
We recognize that the question upon which our decision turned is not free from doubt, and, if there was any doubt of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide the question upon application for writ of error, we would grant the motion to certify. There can be no doubt under our present statute of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court upon application for writ of error to decide the question, and, since it lies at the foundation of plaintiff’s cause of action, it is inconceivable that a proper application for writ of error would be disposed of without a decision of the question. Under the present condition of the docket of the Supreme Court, we think the most expeditious and satisfactory method of obtaining a decision by that court upon the correctness of our opinion in this case is by application for writ of error.
Both motions should in our opinion be refused, and it has been so ordered.
Refused.