MAX KREHER, APPELLANT,
v.
I. E. MORLEY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a dispute over whether a partnership existed between Max Kreher and I. E. Morley in a business venture. The trial court found a partnership existed and ordered an accounting; the appellate court affirmed this finding based on the deferential standard of review for findings of fact.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that a partnership existed between the parties. The appellate court held that the trial court's factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly shown to be erroneous, and here the findings were supported by ample proof.
“the findings of the chancellor on the facts will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for trial court factual findings that governs the appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKreher and Morley were both connected with a business. Kreher alleged they were partners; Morley claimed he was the owner and Kreher was merely an emp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Stock Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
By this suit it is sought to have the court' ascertain and decree that a partnership existed between the complainant and defendant in an enterprise in which it is alleged they were jointly engaged.'
The bill of complaint alleges that a partnership relation existed between the parties. It contains a prayer for an accounting respecting the transactions and dealings of the partnership and for a decree requiring defendant to pajr to complainant such sum or sums as may be found by such accounting to be due him.
The answer denies the existence of the alleged partnership, admits that the defendant and complainant were both connected'with the business, but avers that the relationship of the former was that of owner and of the latter that of employee until the business was incorporated, when the former became a majority stockholder and the latter a minority stockholder and employee of the corporation.
Testimony was taken and upon final hearing a decree for the complainant was entered. From this decree defendant appealed and assigns several errors, all of which are based upon the findings of the chancellor upon final hearing.
The decisive issue is a disputed question of fact. On the one hand complainant asserts the existence of a partnership between the parties. In this he is corroborated by several witnesses and by various circumstances. On the other, defendant disputes the existence of the alleged partnership, asserts sole ownership of the business in himself prior to the time of the incorporation, his exclusive ownership of a large majority of the shares of capital stock subsequent thereto, that complainant never at any time owned any interest in the business or the capital stock of the corporation except one share, and was never more than an employee of defendant or of the corporation. To insert in this opinion a statement or analysis of the evidence would be of no profit to any one. The court below found in complainant’s favor that there was a partnership existing between the parties. There is ample proof to support this finding. The case is well within the frequently reiterated rule that the findings of the chancellor on the facts will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous. Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867, 89 South. Rep. 315; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762; Commercial Bank of Ocala v. First National Bank, 80 Fla. 685, 87 South. Rep. 315; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147; Smith v. O’Brien, 75 Fla. 252, 78 South. Rep. 13; Simpson v. First National Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Jordan v. Jordan, 100 Fla. 1586 (Fla. 1931)…de to appear that his findings were clearly erroneous the decree should stand affirmed. See Jackson v. Jackson, 80 Fla. 557, 86 So. R. 510; Burgess v. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425, 108 So. R. 169; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. R. 105; Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 So. R. 686. The decree is affirmed. Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
-
Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842 (Fla. 1939)…ixed ranged from $65,000.00 to $133,000.00. Evidence of sales of property in the location of the property here involved was submitted. We think there is sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the chancellor. See Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 So. 686; Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867, 89 So. 315. It is necessary for a court to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the parties and if it is clear that the real purpose of the parties to an absolute conveyance of property was to s…1 / 2
-
Wofford v. Wofford, 129 Fla. 445 (Fla. 1937)…is difficult to conceive of a different finding. The record discloses no reversible error. There is ample proof to sustain the report of facts as made by the Special Master and the findings of the Chancellor below. See Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 Sou. Rep. 686. We now pass to the assignments 18 to 21, inclusive, being an order of the lower court overruling and denying appel [*455] lants’ motion to dismiss the bill of- complaint. These as: signments are predicated on the different grounds of the motion to…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Travis v. Sim Travis, 81 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1921)
- Simpson v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1917)
- The Commercial Bank of Ocala v. The First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 80 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1920)
- Hill v. Braxton Beacham and Berta Beacham, 79 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1920)
- Smith v. O'Brien, 75 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1918)
- Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1921)