Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Partnership of "Cuentas en Participaci ÓN. "-A Partnership Who Had An Interest in The Same, There Being No Mutual Agreement

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a partnership. Frank Bourns sought payment for sawing lumber from Lo-Chim-Lim's lumber yard. Bourns alleged Lo-Chim-Lim had partners in the business. The court found the evidence did not support that it was a legal partnership under the Code of Commerce, as there was no mutual agreement between the partners or corporate name. Therefore, the court ruled Bourns could only seek payment from Lo-Chim-Lim as the sole person he contracted with, and absolved the other alleged partners of liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Partnership of "Cuentas en Participaci ÓN. "-A Partnership Who Had An Interest in The Same, There Being No Mutual Agreement

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    32 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a partnership. Frank Bourns sought payment for sawing lumber from Lo-Chim-Lim's lumber yard. Bourns alleged Lo-Chim-Lim had partners in the business. The court found the evidence did not support that it was a legal partnership under the Code of Commerce, as there was no mutual agreement between the partners or corporate name. Therefore, the court ruled Bourns could only seek payment from Lo-Chim-Lim as the sole person he contracted with, and absolved the other alleged partners of liability.

    Original Title

    2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case regarding a partnership. Frank Bourns sought payment for sawing lumber from Lo-Chim-Lim's lumber yard. Bourns alleged Lo-Chim-Lim had partners in the business. The court found the evidence did not support that it was a legal partnership under the Code of Commerce, as there was no mutual agreement between the partners or corporate name. Therefore, the court ruled Bourns could only seek payment from Lo-Chim-Lim as the sole person he contracted with, and absolved the other alleged partners of liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views2 pages

    Partnership of "Cuentas en Participaci ÓN. "-A Partnership Who Had An Interest in The Same, There Being No Mutual Agreement

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a partnership. Frank Bourns sought payment for sawing lumber from Lo-Chim-Lim's lumber yard. Bourns alleged Lo-Chim-Lim had partners in the business. The court found the evidence did not support that it was a legal partnership under the Code of Commerce, as there was no mutual agreement between the partners or corporate name. Therefore, the court ruled Bourns could only seek payment from Lo-Chim-Lim as the sole person he contracted with, and absolved the other alleged partners of liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CORPORATION LAW WEEK 1

    PARTNERSHIP OF "CUENTAS EN PARTICIPACIÓN."—A partnership


    constituted in such a manner that its existence was only known to those
    who had an interest in the same, there being no mutual agreement
    between the partners, and without a corporate name indicating to the public
    in some way that there were other people besides the one who ostensibly
    managed and conducted the business, is exactly the accidental partnership
    of cuentas en participación defined in article 239 of the Code of Commerce.

    FRANK S. BOURNS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. D. M. CARMAN ET AL.,


    defendants and appellants.

    7 Phil 117 December 4, 1906

    Nature of the case: APPEAL from a judgement of CFI of Manila

    Ponente: Mapa, J.

    FACTS: 

    Frank S. Bourns, the plaintiff, seeks to recover the sum of $437.50


    balance due on a contract for sawing of lumber for the lumber yard of Lo-
    Chim-Lim. The contract relating to the said work was entered into by Lo-
    Chim-Lim, acting as in his own name with Bourns. Lo-Chim-Lim personally
    agreed to pay for the work himself. Bourns however brought the action
    against Lo-Chim-Lim and co-defendants, jointly alleging that at the time the
    contract was made, they were joint proprietors and operators of the
    lumberyard and that they were the partners of Lo-Chim-Lim.

    The CFI of Manila dismissed the action against D.M. Carman


    and Fulgencio Tan-Tongco on the ground that they are not partners
    og Lo-Chim-Lim and rendered judgemengt against other defendants.
    Vicente Palanca and Go-Tauco moved for a nee trial and have brought the
    case to this court by bill of exceptions.

    Evidence of record shows the ff:


    1. Lo-Chim-Lim had a lumber yard in Calle Lemery, City of Manila;
    2. He was the manager of the same;
    3. Ordered plaintiff to do work for him at his sawmill in Mnl;
    4. Vicente Palanca was his partner and had interest therein;
    5. Go-tauco received part of earnings;
    6. Partnership formed by verbal agreement and not reduced in to
    writing or recorded in public instrument;
    7. Partnership had no corporate name

    The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the partnership engaged in


    business under the name and style of LoChimLim only. On the other hand, it
    does not appear that there was any mutual agreement between the parties,
    and if there was, it has not been shown what that agreeement was.

    Issue:

    Whether appellants are partners of Lo-Chim-Lim and thus are liable to


    Bourns

    Held:

    Under such circumstances, the Court finds nothing upon which to


    consider the partnership as a partnership of cuentas en participacion. Those
    who contracted with the person in whose name the business of a
    partnership of cuentas en participación is conducted, shall have only the
    right of action against such person and not against the other persons
    interested, and the latter, on the other hand, shall have no right of action
    against the third person who contracted with the manager unless such
    manager formally transferred his right to them.

    Plaintiff has no right to demand from appellants as LoChimLim was the


    only one who contracted with him. Judgment appealed from is reversed
    and appellants are absolved.

    You might also like