Freeman v. Badgley
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Partnership—Assumption of Debts of Old Firm.—Where a new partner is taken into an old firm it may be shown by circumstances that the new firm assumed the former liabilities. But proof that the new firm recognized the debts of the old firm as its debts does not tend to prbve an assumption of the old debts subsequently to the formation of the new copartnership, hut that at the time of the formation of the last copartnership the new firm assumed the old debts, and that the liability of the new partner for them was a part of the consideration paid by him for his interest in the partnership.
Id.—Statute of Fbauds.—An agreement, made after the new partnership was formed, whereby the new partner agrees to assume the debts of the old firm, is an agreement to pay the debt of another, and must be established in compliance with the statute of frauds.
Temple, C. Appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.
Plaintiff, as assignee of George H. Tay & Co., sues to recover the balance of account for goods sold and delivered.
The court found that the business was conducted by Charles Badgley and Charles F. Schettler under the firm name of Schettler & Co., until November 17, 1888, when Badgley bought out his partner, and conducted the business until December 4, 1888, when he formed a partnership with R. H. Quincey, who is respondent here.
When the firm of Schettler '& Co. was dissolved it was indebted to George H. Tay & Co. in the sum of $3,250.30, which indebtedness was then assumed by. Badgley, who incurred a further indebtedness to the same firm before he formed the partnership with Quincey of $174.05, making the entire debt at that time $3,424.35.
That in the partnership agreement executed by Badgley and Quincey, December 4,1888, among other things, it was agreed as follows:
“And to that end and purpose the said parties hereto are each to be equal partners, and each own one-half of the stock, tools, goodwill, contracts now entered into by said Badgley or by the firm of Schettler & Co., the pre[374]decessors of said Badgley in said business, and each is required to pay one-half of the obligations and demands now existing against said Schettler & Co. and said Badgley in said business, which indebtedness said Badgley hereby guarantees shall not exceed the sum of $2,949.33.”
It was also found that on the trial plaintiff disclaimed any right to recover upon the partnership agreement or any part thereof, but based his right solely upon an agreement made subsequently to the partnership.
That Quincey paid to creditors of Badgley and of Schettler & Co. other than George H. Tay & Co., $1,440.94; that George H. Tay & Co. sold to Badgley and Quincey goods to the amount of $2,498.89, all of which had been paid; that on the eighth day of December, 1888, the firm of Badgley and Quincey agreed to pay George H. Tay & Co. $4,861.77, of which sum they have paid $4,807.50, leaving $54.27 still due and unpaid, for which sum judgment was ordered.
Plaintiff, in his motion for a new trial, claims that the finding to the effect that the sum of $2,498.89 has been paid is not supported by the evidence.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)