Collins v. Lewis
1955 Tex. App. LEXIS 2120, 283 S.W.2d 258 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A partner who has not fully and fairly performed their obligations under a partnership agreement has no standing in a court of equity to demand a judicial dissolution of the partnership.
Facts:
- Carr P. Collins and John L. Lewis formed a partnership to establish and operate the L-C Cafeteria for a 30-year term.
- Under their agreement, Collins was obligated to provide all necessary funds to build and open the cafeteria, while Lewis was to provide management.
- Lewis guaranteed that funds advanced by Collins would be repaid at a specified minimum rate, otherwise Lewis would have to surrender his interest in the partnership.
- The cost to open the cafeteria substantially exceeded initial estimates, eventually totaling over $600,000, all of which Collins advanced.
- Shortly after opening, the cafeteria began operating at a loss.
- Collins demanded the business become immediately profitable, refused to advance any more funds for remaining startup costs, and began interfering with Lewis's management of the business.
- The relationship deteriorated, with Collins accusing Lewis of mismanagement and Lewis accusing Collins of unauthorized interference.
- Lewis used earnings from the business to pay for initial costs that Collins, in breach of their agreement, refused to cover.
Procedural Posture:
- Collins (appellants) filed suit against Lewis (appellees) in the District Court of Harris County, seeking a receivership, judicial dissolution of their partnership, and foreclosure of a mortgage.
- Lewis filed a cross-action for damages for breach of contract.
- The trial court denied the petition for receivership.
- Following a five-week trial, a jury returned a verdict in response to 23 special issues, finding largely in favor of Lewis.
- The trial court entered a judgment based on the jury's verdict, denying all relief sought by Collins.
- Collins appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a partner have a legal right to judicial dissolution of a partnership where the partnership's lack of profitability was caused by that same partner's own wrongful conduct in breach of the partnership agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamblen, Chief Justice
No. A partner does not have the legal right to a judicial dissolution of a partnership when their own conduct, in violation of the partnership agreement, caused the conditions used to justify the dissolution. The court distinguished between the inherent power of a partner to dissolve a partnership (which always exists but may result in liability for damages) and the legal right to a judicial dissolution, which is an equitable remedy. Citing the maxim that one cannot seek equity with 'unclean hands' and the precedent in Karrick v. Hannaman, the court held that a partner who breaches the partnership agreement forfeits their standing to seek equitable relief like dissolution. Here, the jury found that Lewis was a competent manager and that the cafeteria would have had a reasonable expectation of profit 'but for the conduct of Collins.' Since Collins's own wrongful interference and breach of his funding obligations caused the unprofitability he complained of, the court of equity would not grant him the dissolution he sought. Similarly, Collins could not foreclose on Lewis's interest because any default was manufactured by Collins's own breach and his inducement of the bank to call the notes.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that judicial dissolution of a partnership is an equitable remedy, not an absolute right. It establishes that a partner's own misconduct or breach of the agreement—the 'unclean hands' doctrine—can serve as a complete defense against their petition for dissolution. The case emphasizes that a court will examine the cause of partnership discord and unprofitability before granting dissolution. This precedent prevents partners from wrongfully creating grounds for dissolution to force a partner out or escape their own contractual obligations.
