Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918

Russell v. Hayden

Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided April 11, 1918 · No. 6 Div. 653. · Sayre, Anderson, McClelian, Gardner

78 So. 871; 201 Ala. 517; 1918 Ala. LEXIS 99 (Southern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Heller v. Berlin (Ala. 1923)
Williams v. Williams (Ala. 1921)
Turner v. Rainey (Ala. 1956)
Young v. Dean (Ala. 1950)
Cunningham v. Staples (Ala. 1927)
Russell v. Hayden (Ala. 1923)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SAYRE, J.

[1-3] No writing, nor any particular form, is necessary to the creation of a contract of partnership. Like most other contracts, it may be implied from conduct and circumstances. Causler v. Wharton, 62 Ala. 358. But a contract, express or implied, *518 is necessary, and the terms and conditions of the alleged partnership between appellee and appellants’ testator, whether express or implied, the respective interests of the alleged partners, should have been averred in terms or in substance in appellee’s bill for its settlement. Our decisions and the authorities generally so hold (Tutwiler v. Dugger, 127 Ala. 191, 28 South. 677; Little v. Snedecor, 52 Ala. 167), and we have discovered no reason why the rule should not be followed in this cause.

The decree overruling the demurrer of appellants to appellee’s bill will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELIAN and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.