Court Opinion

ID: 9866171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:32:47.255264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:13:22.204289
License: Public Domain

On the Merits.
Antonio Serio is an illiterate Italian, 67 years old: He can neither read nor write English or Italian. Guy Serio, 27 years old, is his son. He appears to have a practical education and to possess the happy faculty,' present in many of his race, of being able to earn and save money, mainly by his efforts as a retail'vendor of merchandise.
Antonio Serio, during the minority of all his sons, operated a store in a building in Eerriday, owned by plaintiff, under the style of “A. Serio & Son.” However, it appears that it was exclusively owned by the elder Serio. The building and contents were consumed by fire on Christmas night, 1927. He then engaged in the hotel and restaurant business for a while, but, becoming hopelessly insolvent, he surrendered his meager assets'to a trustee selected by his .creditors, and in the end they received less than 10 per cent, of their accounts.- However, this settlement with them did not extinguish the balance due on their accounts, although Serio thought he would be fully discharged therefrom. See Oalhoun v. Serio (La. App.) 154 So. 465. It did leave him without credit or assets. Soon thereafter arrangements were made with a local wholesale grocery firm to extend him credit to the amount of $100. With this assistance he opened a small grocery store on the gravel highway in the western part of Fer-riday in the name of “S. Serio,” and continued the business for several months. It was not successful. He paid $40 per month rent, for the store building, and this drain, coupled with poor business conditions, soon undermined the stability of his business. Defendant and another son came to his financial rescue to a material extent. Defendant was then earning a fairly good competence in Lake Providence, La. He accumulated about $1,000 and returned to Ferriday in the early part of the year 1930. The testimony sustains defendant’s contention that the value of the stock of goods of Antonio Serio at this time was not in excess of $300, in fact, nearer $200, and that he was owing thereon approximately $125. He had no store fixtures. Defendant then leased another building, more favorably located, and took into his possession his father’s stock of goods, moved same to the new location, and paid the amount due thereon. He took the position that, in view of the fact that his money had been used by his father in paying rents and purchasing merchandise, this small stock was in reality his own. The elder Serio at least acquiesced in this attitude of the son. From this time on defendant has been in active charge of the business. It has grown prosperous. It has been and is now conducted under the trade-name of “Serio Cash Grocery.” He and his father have sleeping quarters in the rear of the building. The father is dependent upon defendant for subsistence, etc. His health is not good, and he is physically unable to render assistance worth while to the business.
The method of defendant’s acquisition of the elder Serio’s meager equity in his stock of goods is of no importance. The fact that he did take it over and make it his own, paying its liabilities, under the circumstances, should not arouse suspicion. The father had proved his inability to succeed as a merchant. Another fact that argues strongly against the probability that defendant would carry him as a partner in the business is that Antonio Serio was then hopelessly insolvent. Any property he might accumulate would be subject to seizure by his creditors, and, if seized, destroy or materially cripple the business. He was afraid to carry on the business on the gravel road in his own name, using that of “Sam Serio,” a dead brother; his own sons then being minors.
Plaintiff’s contention is that these two Ser-ios are partners and own the “Serio Cash Grocery” business. He submits proof of some isolated facts tending to support this contention, but arrayed against these facts and any inconclusive inferences deductible therefrom, we have the positive testimony of defendant, and his father, supported by many strong circumstances, that the business is owned in its entirety by the son. Among these supporting facts and circumstances, we mention the following: That the new location was rented by Guy . Serio in his own name, he then being of *775age; the rent thereon was paid by his own checks, on a local bank, or by goods sold to the lessor from the store; the hank account, supplemented from time to time by deposits from the store’s business activities, and reduced intermittently by cheeks to discharge its liabilities, was .carried in the name of “Guy Serio”; valuable fixtures were purchased, as the business expanded, in the name of “Serio Cash Grocery” by Guy Serio, and notes given and chattel mortgages executed in that name; and, during the last four years at least, that part of the commercial world having business dealings with “Serio Cash Grocery” understands that Guy Serio is the sole owner thereof. Adoption and use of a trade-name, as was done in this instance, is permissible under the law; no intent to defraud or mislead the public being present. J. R. Kent & Co. v. Mojonier, 36 La. Ann. 259.
No presumption of the existence of a partnership arises from the use of such a trade-name. If the words “and Company” or “& Company,” had been employed as a suffix to the trade-name, the situation would to some extent be altered. Rev. St. § 2668. In re Pelican Insurance Company, 47 La. Ann. 935, 17 So. 427; Wolfe v. Joubert et al., 45 La. Ann. 1100, 13 So. 806, 21 L. R. A. 772.
Some stress is laid on the fact that the occupation license for the years 1930 and 1931, issued to Sam Serio when, according to defendant, he was the exclusive owner of the business. Presumably the 1930 license issued before the goods were taken over by defendant. The sheriff testified that he invariably sent one of his deputies out to collect occupation licenses; that persons due to secure such licenses would not come to his office to get them. He could not recall who actually paid for the Serio licenses for 1930 and 1931. It is entirely probable that the deputy simply followed the form of the old license.
The fact that a wholesale merchant of Ferriday, after Guy Serio took over his father’s goods early in 1930, continued to carry the account for a year or more against Sam Serio, and was of the impression that the business continued that of Antonio Serio, does not, even when considered in the light of other facts and circumstances depended upon by plaintiff, prove the falsity of defendant’s contention. In some respects this merchant’s testimony is patently erroneous, though given in good faith; it is not improbable that he could have been in error in other respects.
We have studied the record diligently, and turn from it convinced that the lower court’s judgment is manifestly correct. It would have to appear manifestly erroneous to justify disturbance from us.
Plaintiff carried the burden of establishing the correctness of his contentions. He has signally failed to do this.
Judgment affirmed.