Law School Case Brief
Fuller v. Fuller - 518 S.W.2d 250
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132b, § 6 defines a partnership as an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.
A partnership is a relationship between or among two or more persons in which there is a common enterprise and a community of interest therein; the prosecution of the common enterprise for the joint benefit of the parties; and a right of each of the parties to participate to some extent in the profits as such and an obligation of each of the parties to bear some portion of the losses, if any, sustained by the business. The question of the existence of a partnership is one of fact. If there is some evidence of a substantial and probative character to support a trial court's finding that a partnership exists, the same is controlling upon reviewing courts and will not be disturbed. A reviewing court should never set aside a trial court judgment merely because the trier of facts could have drawn different inferences or conclusions.
Betty R. Fuller filed application below for a charging order pursuant to the Texas Uniform Partnership Act against James S. Fuller's interest in the law firm of Fuller, Fuller & McPherson. The order was granted and Fuller appealled contending that the firm of Fuller, Fuller & McPherson is not a partnership within the Act.
Is Fuller, Fuller & McPherson a partnership within the Texas Uniform Partnership Act?
The court affirmed the charging order, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's order. A partnership was defined by the Act as an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit. Further, the criterion by which to determine, in general, whether persons were partners was to ascertain whether there was a communion of profit and loss between them. Whether a partnership existed was a question of fact for the trier of facts. If there was some evidence of a substantial and probative character to support a finding that a partnership existed, the same would be controlling upon reviewing courts and would not be disturbed. Here, the members of appellant's firm referred to themselves as "partners" and filed a partnership tax return. They further divided any profits remaining after their withdrawal of fixed sums per month.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class