HELLER v. BERLIN, 210 Ala. 549 (1924)

98 So. 803

HELLER v. BERLIN.

6 Div. 959.Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 17, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Bessemer Division; J. C. B. Gwinn, Judge.

Mathews Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellant.

The amendment does meet the requirement, and the bill is insufficient. Tutwiler v. Dugger, 127 Ala. 191, 28 So. 677; Mayrant v. Marston-Brown Co., 67 Ala. 453; Pulliam v. Schimpf, 100 Ala. 362, 14 So. 488; Hill v. Hill, 205 Ala. 33, 88 So. 224; 30 Cyc. 380.

Goodwyn Ross, of Bessemer, and Louis Silberman, of Birmingham, for appellee.

The bill contains every necessary averment, and is sufficient. Heller v. Berlin, 208 Ala. 640, 95 So. 10; Gillett v. Higgins, 142 Ala. 444, 38 So. 664, 4 Ann. Cas. 459; Williams v. Williams, 206 Ala. 125, 89 So. 272; Hill v. Hill, 205 Ala. 33, 88 So. 224; Moore v. Price. 116 Ala. 247, 22 So. 531; Russell v. Hayden, 201 Ala. 517, 78 So. 871.

SOMERVILLE, J.

The appellee, Berlin, filed his bill of complaint to establish a partnership between himself and the respondent, Heller, and for a dissolution and an accounting of the partnership business. On a former appeal it was held, on demurrer, that the bill was insufficient in that it did not show the respective interests of the alleged partners, and also in that it did not show an essential of the partnership relation — a sharing of the losses suffered in the operation of the business. Heller v. Berlin, 208 Ala. 640, 95 So. 10. On remandment the bill was amended in both of those respects, and the demurrer filed thereto was overruled. Appellant’s contention is that the amendments are not sufficient, and that the bill as amended is subject to the same grounds of demurrer originally sustained. We think, however, that the amendments

Page 550

are clearly sufficient, and that, as amended, the bill is not subject to any of the grounds of demurrer assigned.

The decree overruling the demurrer will therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.