Toll v. Lewis
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court; Jno. M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The preponderance of the testimony shows that the various tracts of land were bought, individually by C. P. Toll and that there was no partnership but an individual transaction of Toll. 2. But if they were partners, the chancellor erred in his findings as to the amounts paid by Toll on the purchase price, expenses, commissions and taxes and the allowances made to Lewis. 3. The court erred against the right…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court; Jno. M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The preponderance of the testimony shows that the various tracts of land were bought, individually by C. P. Toll and that there was no partnership but an individual transaction of Toll. 2. But if they were partners, the chancellor erred in his findings as to the amounts paid by Toll on the purchase price, expenses, commissions and taxes and the allowances made to Lewis. 3. The court erred against the right of Geo. 0. Toll as to the $700 mortgage. There are no legal questions involved and the preponderance of the testimony…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Geo. C. Lewis brought suit in equity against C. P. Toll and Geo. 0. Toll for an accounting of profits in a partnership between Geo. C. Lewis and C. P. Toll for the purchase and resale of lands. Geo. 0. Toll was made a party because C. P. Toll had mortgaged to him one of the tracts of land belonging to the partnership. The defendants denied the existence of the partnership and denied that they were due the plaintiff anything on account of such partnership.
The chancellor found that there was a partnership formed between Geo. C. Lewis and C. P. Toll for the purchase and resale of lands; that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Beebe v. OlentineSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
3Cited by3 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. GwilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- Edlin v. MoserSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Sharpe v. HuntSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943