Opinion

Cole v. Brown

  • 289 Ala. 712
  • 271 So. 2d 846
  • 1972 Ala. LEXIS 1135
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Nov 16, 1972
Status
Published
Author
Merrill
On the bench
Harwood, Heflin, Maddox, Merrill, Somerville
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 54.1%

The opinion

MERRILL, Justice.

Appellant, Louise S. Cole, appealed from the final decree in Bateh v. Brown, S.C. 8, 289 Ala. 699 , 271 So.2d 833 , this day decided.

Mrs. Cole worked for B-D Development Company many years before the partners, Bateh and Brown, had their “falling out.” On or about May 1, 1970, Mrs. Cole’s employment was terminated. After two other creditors of the partnership had filed claims, Mrs. Cole filed her sworn claim against the partnership claiming unpaid back compensation, vacation pay and hospital insurance aggregating $2,094.00 and a pension of $150.00 per month for her lifetime, which she claims had been agreed to by the partnership.

This claim filed by Mrs. Cole was not a liquidated claim. It was filed on August 24, 1971, just seven days before the entering of the final decree in Bateh v. Browq, S.C. 8. Her claim was not mentioned in the decree. She filed an application for rehearing but her claim was still ignored.

B-D Development Compny has filed no brief nor has partner Brown filed one, but partner Bateh has. Bateh takes the position that he and the partnership would have thirty days to answer the claim under Equity Rule 17, but the final decree of August 31, 1971 did not mention the claim and the partners had no opportunity to contest the claim as Mrs. Cole had no opportunity to prove it.

In view of the fact that the cause is being remanded, Mrs. Cole’s claim will still be filed, the partners and the partnership will have opportunity to contest the claim if they so choose. In the event Mrs. Cole does have a valid claim and is a creditor, her claim would have a priority over a claim of either partner since the debts to those who are not partners should first be satisfied out of the assets of the partnership. Carter v. Carter, 247 Ala. 409 , 24 So.2d 759 .

The decree in S.C. 8 having been reversed and the cause remanded, the proceedings in this cause are remanded for further consideration on the merits of the claim.

Reversed and remanded.

HEFLIN, C. J., and HARWOOD, MADDOX and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.