Case Digest (G.R. No. 30286)
Facts:
M. Teague v. H. Martin, J. T. Maddy and L. H. Golucke, G.R. No. 30286, September 12, 1929, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant M. Teague and defendants-appellees H. Martin, J. T. Maddy and L. H. Golucke conducted a business as partners under an unsigned but mutually acted-upon "plans for formation of a limited partnership" that allocated specific duties and contemplated salaries (P300) for Maddy and Martin and deferred Teague's salary until the business became profitable. Teague filed suit seeking dissolution of the partnership and appointment of a receiver pendente lite; defendants did not oppose dissolution but counterclaimed for an accounting.
At trial the parties agreed a partnership existed and the dispute centered on accounting and ownership of several items: the lighter Lapu‑Lapu, a Ford truck, and an adding machine. Evidence showed these items were purchased with partnership funds but were registered and titled in Teague’s personal name; Teague had sworn a customs affidavit of ownership and signed registrations in his name. The trial court found the unsigned tentative agreement had been acted upon and accepted by all partners as the basis of their business, limited each partner’s powers to the duties described therein, allowed Maddy and Martin salaries of P300, denied Teague a salary because the business never showed a net profit, and resolved the ownership and accounting issues against Teague.
Teague appealed the trial court’s findings and judgment to the Supreme Court (appeal from the lower court). The Supreme Court reviewed the factual findings and the disposition of ownership and accounting, and considered whether Teague’s acts in taking title and registering the property in his own name estopped him from claiming the items as partnership property. The Court affirmed the lower court’s factual findings a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the lower court err in failing to specifically decide whether plaintiff Teague was the manager of the unregistered partnership?
- Were the Lapu‑Lapu, the Ford truck, and the adding machine the property of the partnership or of Teague personally?
- Is Teague entitled to compensation from the partnership for the partnership’s use of the Lapu‑Lapu prior t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)