MOORE v. BEIER

Annotate this Case

MOORE v. BEIER
1949 OK 192
210 P.2d 359
202 Okla. 63
Case Number: 33280
Decided: 09/28/1949
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus

¶0 1. PARTNERSHIP - Definition of partnership.
54 O.S.A. § 1 defines a partnership as: "Partnership is the association of two or more persons for the purpose of carrying on business together, and dividing its profits between them."
2. SAME - Each general partner jointly liable with copartner for obligation of partnership.
Under 54 O.S.A. § 40 , the liability of each general partner for an obligation of the partnership is a joint liability with his co-partner.
3. SAME - Existence of partnership as question for jury where evidence conflicting.
Where the evidence is in conflict on a disputed question of fact as to the existence or nonexistence of a partnership, the matter is one for determination by a jury.
4. SAME - Action for recovery of obligation of partnership incurred before its dissolution should proceed against individual partners.
Where a partnership has been dissolved before an action is commenced for recovery on an obligation of the partnership incurred before its dissolution, such action may be maintained and judgment rendered against the individuals formerly comprising the partnership and no judgment can be rendered against the partnership as such.

Appeal from District Court, Noble County; Roy R. Carver, Judge.

Action by R.L. Beier against E.M. Ramsey and Nels Moore to recover purchase price of three head of cattle. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff against both defendants, the defendant Moore alone appeals. Affirmed.

Smith & Lamberton, of Enid, for plaintiff in error.

Cress & Rosser, of Perry, for defendants in error.

JOHNSON, J.

¶1 The pleadings, evidence, argument and contentions in this case are identical with the allegations, contentions, evidence and proceedings in the case of Moore v. Diehm et al., 200 Okla. 664, 199 P.2d 218, except this action is by R.L. Beier against Nels Moore and E.M. Ramsey seeking to recover the purchase price of three (3) head of cattle, whereas in Moore v. Diehm et al., supra, Diehm was seeking to recover from Moore and Ramsey the purchase price of fifteen (15) head of cattle. The facts of this case being essentially the same as those in the Diehm case, supra, the rules of law there applied are applicable here.

¶2 Affirmed.