Baker v. Schneider, 80 S.E.2d 783 (Ga. 1954). · Go Syfert
Search
Baker v. Schneider, 80 S.E.2d 783 (Ga. 1954). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a partnership may be created by parol contract.”
11 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: StarPro, Greens, Inc. v. Polyloom Corporation of America (ca11, 2026-04-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) StarPro, Greens, Inc. v. Polyloom Corporation of America
11th Cir. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a partnership may be created by parol contract.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Singleton v. Terry
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
United Tower contends that the partial denial of its motion for summary judgment was error in that Ms. Terry’s sole right of action against the partnership was one for an accounting under OCGA § 14-8-43, 2 and such action was barred by OCGA § 9-3-25’s four-year statute of limitation. 3 See Baker v. Schneider, 210 Ga. 493, 494 (2) ( 80 SE2d 783 ) (1954) (action for accounting based on parol contract of partnership, filed more than four years after termination of partnership barred by statute of limitation).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jamal v. Pirani (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Carnes v. McNeal, 224 Ga. App. 88, 89 ( 479 SE2d 474 ) (1996); see also Baker v. Schneider, 210 Ga. 493, 494 (2) ( 80 SE2d 783 ) (1954).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BAKER
v.
SCHNEIDER et al. SCHNEIDER et al. v. BAKER et al.
18447, 18448.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Mar 9, 1954.
80 S.E.2d 783
Head.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Martin McFarland, Walter G. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.

Woodruff & Swift, H. A. Stephens, Jr., Martin McFarland, Walter G. Cooper, Woodruff, Swift & Stevens, contra.

[*496] HEAD, Justice.

1. A partnership may be created by parol contract. Code § 75-101. If there be no agreement as to the time of its continuance, the partnership is at will and may be dissolved at any time by any partner on the giving of three months' notice to his partners. Code § 75-106.

[*494] 2. The petition alleges that the business of the partnership was incorporated in June, 1946. The judgment of incorporation terminated the partnership and was notice to the plaintiff and all interested persons of its termination. The action for an accounting based on the parol contract of partnership, filed more than four years after the termination of the partnership, is barred by the statute of limitations. Code § 3-706.

3. The contention of the plaintiff that the defendant Schneider was a trustee under an implied trust can not be maintained. An implied trust is necessarily based upon an implied contract — implied either in fact or in law. Guffin v. Kelly, 191 Ga. 880, 887 (14 S. E. 2d 50); Jones v. Jones, 196 Ga. 492, 495 (26 S. E. 2d 602). The plaintiff's case rests on an oral contract, and it clearly appears that the consideration of services performed by the plaintiff for the partnership and the moneys alleged to have been paid by him into the partnership were subsequent to the purchase of the partnership assets. "A resulting trust which arises solely from the payment of the purchase-price is not created, unless the purchase-money is paid either before or at the time of the purchase." Hurst v. Hurst, 182 Ga. 138 (184 S. E. 867), and citations.

4. Under the allegations of the petition, there was no implied resulting trust, and the plaintiff's action is controlled by the limitation of four years applicable to parol contracts. It follows that the court properly sustained the demurrers to the petition.

Judgment affirmed on the main bill of exceptions; cross-bill of exceptions dismissed. All the Justices concur.