J. M. MARKLEY, HUGH ANDERSON, R. B. LEONARD, AND J. V. RILEY, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF MIAMI BLOCK COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
I. E. SCHILLING COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 involved a lawsuit for an account against a co-partnership. The court found that while the defendants were liable as partners due to non-compliance with incorporation statutes, some defendants had withdrawn from the company before all debts were incurred, making the joint judgment for the full amount erroneous.
The court held that while the defendants were liable as partners due to statutory non-compliance, the three defendants who withdrew from the company before the plaintiff had notice of their withdrawal were not liable for debts incurred after their withdrawal. Therefore, the joint judgment against all defendants for the entire account was erroneous.
“Under the statute, Section 4054, Revised General Statutes of 1920, the stockholders are liable as members of a general partnership, the requirements of the statute not having been complied with”
Establishes the basis for partnership liability due to statutory non-compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Miami Block Company, a corporation whose incorporators failed to meet statutory requirements, was sued for an account. Three of the four partners …
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 General Partnership cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— Assumpsit on an account running between May 6, 1921 and June 24, 1921, was brought against J. M. Markley, Hugh Anderson, R. B. Leonard and J. Y. Riley, co-partners doing business under the firm name and style of Miami Block Company. Markley, Anderson and Leonard pleaded: never were indebted as alleged and also “that at the time of the alleged right of action the plaintiff accrued and at the time of the institution Of this suit, the said defendants nor either of them were partners of or interested in any way with the said co-partnership doing busiñéss under the name of MIAMI BLOCK COMPANY.”
Riley pleaded: never was indebted as alleged. Yerdict and judgment were rendered against all of the defendants as co-partners for the full amount of the running account. Writ of error was taken by the defendants.
Articles of incorporation to the Miami Block Company were issued in January 1921, upon the' application of the defendants and one other person who were incorporators and subscribers to the capital stock. Nothing further appears to have been done under or pursuant to the charter. Under the statute, Section 4054, Revised General Statutes of 1920, the stockholders are liable as members of a general partnership, the requirements of the statute not having been complied with; but it appears that notice was brought-home to the plaintiff on May 21, 1921, that the defendants Markley, Anderson and Leonard were out of the Miami Block Company, therefore, Markley, Anderson and Leonard were not liable for items of indebtedness incurred after May 21, 1921. The joint judgment against all the defendants for the entire account is erroneous. See Winfield v. Truitt, 71 Fla. 38, 70 South. Rep. 775; Graham v. Sewell, 80 Fla. 720, 86 South. Rep. 639; Mechanics & Metals Nat. Bank of City of New York v. Angel, 79 Fla. 761, 85 South. Rep. 675; Charles v. Young, 74 Fla. 298, South Rep. 869.
Reversed.
Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur;
Brown, C. J., and Ellis, J., Concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Winfield v. Truitt, 71 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1916)
- Charles v. Young, 74 Fla. 298 (Fla. 1917)
- The Mechanics & Metals Nat'l Bank of the City of N.Y. v. Angel, 79 Fla. 761 (Fla. 1920)
- Graham v. Sewell, 80 Fla. 720 (Fla. 1920)