[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
55 views1 page

Bonnevie V Hernandez

The document discusses a case involving a partnership that was formed to purchase properties from a company. The partnership bought the properties but one partner was named as the sole buyer. Some partners later withdrew from the partnership. The withdrawing partners later tried to claim a share of profits from the subsequent sale of the properties, but the court ruled they were not entitled to any share after withdrawing.

Uploaded by

Laura R. Prado-Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views1 page

Bonnevie V Hernandez

The document discusses a case involving a partnership that was formed to purchase properties from a company. The partnership bought the properties but one partner was named as the sole buyer. Some partners later withdrew from the partnership. The withdrawing partners later tried to claim a share of profits from the subsequent sale of the properties, but the court ruled they were not entitled to any share after withdrawing.

Uploaded by

Laura R. Prado-Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Bonnevie v Hernandez

Facts:
- Plaintiffs with other associates formed a syndicate or secret
partnership for the purpose of acquiring the plants, franchises and
other properties of the Manila electric Co (Meralco) in the provinces of
Cam Sur, Albay, and Sorsogon, with the idea of continuing that
companys business in that region.
- In the meantime, they elected Sarranzana and Serrano as general
manager and secretary treasurer, respectively, of the partnership.
- Negotiation for the purchase was commenced and the defendant was
taken in as a member of the partnership so that he could push the deal
through and to that end he was given the necessary power of attorney.
- Using the partnership funds, defendant was able to buy Meralco upon
signing of the deed of sale .
- Though the defendant was the one named vendee in the deed of sale,
there is no question that the transaction was in reality made for the
partnership so that the latter assumed control of the business.
- Several partners were not satisfied with the way matters were being
run and they fear that the business may fail so the partnership was
dissolved. Defendant made a formal assignment of Meralco properties.
- 2 years later, the plaintiff filed a case against defendant claiming a
share in the profit the latter is supposed to have made from the
assignment of the Meralco properties to the corporation.
Issue:
WON plaintiffs, after their withdrawal from partnership, ceased to have
any further interest in subsequent transactions of the remaining
members
Held:
No
Ruling:
- As a general rule, when a partner retires from the partnership, he is
entitled to the payment of what may be due him after a liquidation. But
no liquidation is necessary where there is already a settlement or an
agreement as to what the retiring partner shall receive, and the latter
was in fact reimbursed pursuant to the agreement.
- It does not appear that plaintiffs have ever asked for a liquidation, and
as will presently be explained no liquidation was called for because
when plaintiffs withdrew from the partnership the understanding was
that after they had been reimbursed their investment, they were no
longer to have any further interest in the partnership or its assets and
liabilities.

You might also like