*1 REPORTER, 2d SERIES WESTERN SOUTH mony) on pose is beside that mony. Civil to “conclusion is no reference to the Gourt relevant throughout shows bility, admission was of counsel mony with cle 2181 vested that CURETON, C. J. In that amount of that imputed the trial Appeals affirmed. recommend that his witnesses about that In the new Besides, might and of the Civil matter and him Higginbotham reopening posture (given on the motion for new introduction opportunity then values, knowledge any point Appeals judge law. testimony that used, Judgment the case for another production; possibility, witnesses wouid be argument.” one amount of oil abused offered cannot here be well. now reviewable. of defendant’s testi matter 'of new could and the mere fact affirmed. inviting the terms of the Court of reopened prior The the discretion plaintiff were excused 3. Limitation given (as if not that was disclosure new testi testimony produced original disclosed for its of arti proba trial) there testi- pur would have received had it not been purpose breach of contract 5. leged after destruction of amended 4. Limitation contract to drill and was done on first well to increase was abandoned over held thereof within such ment,' alleged tract cover have received amended tion though ing period. alleged amended plete Damages Plaintiffs are not entitled to Limitation Claim complete drill in amended against damages exceeding petition of actual first some breach second1 petition wouid petition petition. &wkey;>l damages well, in amended of actions second oil work cause of had limitation, alleging actions of written contract damages being compensation. 20(1) well, where petition first, held barred was done period. two cause of for breach of oral —Plaintiffs breach ©f oral contract breach written action first run until &wkey;»I27(I3) would run until well, <&wkey;»l27(11) amount though for breach of oral complete not been broken. amount than original petition work second oil well action, before first damages broken, to drill and some work they production first on, —Claim well dur to- com filing first al- thereof. —Limita- agree- well, they con- sole re- <&wkey;d 6. Mines and minerals 09' —Plaintiffs held mot entitled to lost in addition to drilling damages oil well as for breach drilling contract. Plaintiffs, in action for breach of contract COAL TEXAS PACIFIC & OIL CO. v. well, not entitled to amount of (No. 341.) et ux. STUARD royalties, which would have accrued them fully developed premises, in ad- Appeals Texas. Court of Eastland. Civil dition to amount which it would have cost de- Feb. 1928. fendant to drill well. Rehearing Denied March <i&wkey;l drilling 7. Mines and minerals 09 —Cost damages oil well is measure for breach of <&wkey;9l (I) Appeals Civil 1. Courts drilling —Court by Supreme determination, bound dismissing Court’s drilling The cost of an oil well is the cor- jurisdic- writ error want of damages rect measure for the breach of a tion, prior was no conflict that between drilling contract. Appeals. decisions Courts Civil <&wkey;i99Plaintiffs, 8. Mines and1 minerals — Appeals of Civil bound Court Su- pleading proving they that would have determination, dismissing preme of no of cisions of same Court’s writ drilling realized less than cost of oil well jurisdiction, error for want of that there drilled, had1 it been made such amount meas between decision of another Court ure for failure to drill. appeal on former Civil pleading proving, Plaintiffs in action court and third for breach of contract drill oil dispose Appeals, in and must of second total amount would have realized had well light determination. of such been drilled and thereafter drilling well, less than cost of made such &wkey;>l&9 and minerals Mines' —Cost amount measure of their may b© recovered for breach of though good defendant believed in <S&wkey;ll7 Damages plaintiffs’ pleading —Where of oü and faith that proof show that either of two measures quantities would have resulted. fully compensate him, expensive adopted. less to defendant must be obligates to and fails himself drill a If one well for proved by so, plaintiff to certain facts recovery well, for cost of either of be had such showed that measures good compensate he believed in faith for’ breach him for his operations covery loss, would not have resulted dis- measure which is less paying quantities. expensive adopted. to defendant must be Key-Numbered all other cases see same KEY-NUMBER Indexe»
®=>For
*2
(Tex;)
& OIL
COAL
CO. v. STDARD
PACIFIC
TEXAS
S.W, (2d)
unproductive
gas
paying quanti-
ed
of oil or
<&wkey;S2(I)
actions
of
10. Limitation
—Action
ties,
sufficient.
held
because
by
of
well
oil
destruction
negligence
delicto
ex
was action
of lessee’s
<&wkey;260(9)
requests
18. Trial
—Refusal
statute.
paying quantities”
definitions of
and
“in
damages by
oil
destruction
Action
diligence”
justified1
held not
as embodied in
placing
of lessee’s
because
special
ordinarily prudent op
issue whether
large
encountering
casing on
on
control head
erator would have drilled third well
ob
to
gas,
delicto barred
action ex
volume
production
pay
plus
tain sufficient
costs
to
out.
blew
after
statute two
profit.
reasonable
requests
phras-
Refusal of
<&wkey;f09'Damages
definitions
and minerals
11. Mines
—
paying quantities”
es,
diligence,”
“in
and “dlie
improperly
allow-
well held
destruction
oil
justified
on
held
em-
were
ed, being
lost
in award
included
special
ordinarily pru-
bodied in
issue
whether
develop premises.
properly
operator
oil
would have drilled third well
dent
for destruction
Allowance
purpose
obtaining enough
on lease for
oil
negli-
lessee’s
oil
gence
defendant
well because
gas
pay
operation
and
and
there-
damages being
erroneous;
in-
held
plus
profit;
being
reasonable
essential
as total value
sum
cluded
of additional
award
phrases
understand such
to answer
royalties plaintiffs
special
develop-
issue as to whether defendant
development
premises.
by proper
received
premises
diligence
proved
with due
ed
until
unproductive
gas
paying quantities.
implications
<&wkey;>245(l)
of oil
12. Contracts
—All
agreement.
clearly expressed
superseded
<&wkey;d067
Appeal
19.
and error
to sub-
—Refusal
obligations under con-
and
If one’s duties
special
mit definitions of terms in
issue
implications
clearly expressed, all
tract are
as^to
development
premises
diligence^’
with “due
superseded
arise are
otherwise
which would
proved unproductive
gas
until
of oil or
“in
agreement.
express
paying quantities”
prejudicial
held
to lessee
(Rev.
2189).
St.
art.
<&wkey;78(l)
must
13.
minerals
Mines and
—Lessee
discovering
diligently
phrases,
develop premises
Refusal
to submit definitions of
on
oil
paying quantities”
possible
diligence,”
gas
“in
special
developed premises
and “due
if
and
profitably.
issue as to whether defendant lessee
diligence
with due
until
corporation accepting
oil
It became
proved unproductive
pay-
land
of oil or
discovering
gas lease,
and
in'
on
oil
and
paying
ly
if it could
ing quantities,
prejudicial
defendant,
diligent-
develop premises
quantities,
held
view Rev. St.
art. producing
gas,
purpose of
such oil and
profitably to lessee.
be done
&wkey;>78(
I)
20. Mines and minerals
im-
—Lessee’s
<&wkey;l
part
every
plied obligation
develop premises
67—-Law
14. Contracts
attached
contract.
test well
pay-
when
disclosed oil and
ing quantities,
though
every
part
produce
is a
did not
The law
enough
pay expenses
because of accident
negligence.
<&wkey;*78(-7)
due to lessee’s
minerals
and
15. Mines
—Lessors’
develop premises
pleading
of oral
implied obligation
While lessee’s
to de-
implied
preclude
obli- velop premises
held not
reliance
under
oil
arose
gations under written oil lease.
presence
test well disclosed
paying
attached, though
obligation
pleading
quantities,
oral
premises,
Lessors’
diligently
produce
enough
well
did not
lessee
as
of
pay expenses
obligation implied.
provisions
from
well
written
lease,
precluded
rely-
negligence,
enough
of accident due to lessee’s
oil
held
profit
implied obligation;
agreement
reasonable
substracting
adding
drilling.
discovered
to nor
from lessee’s
not
duty
derstanding
constituting
lease,
mere
oral un-
implications
Rehearing.
as to
lease.
Appeal
<&wkey;2l6(l)
and error
&wkey;>78(I)Implied
—Failure
and minerals
ob-
Mines
—
error,
fine
term is reversible
where such
ligation
premises after
ex-
charge,
made to
ob-
part
ploratory
well held
written
jector
prepare
request
failed to
governed by four-year
statute.
charge (Rev.
2189).
St.
art.
Implied
under oil lease to de-
legal term,
Trial court’s failure to define a
drilling exploratory
velop premises after
required by
Rev.
St.
art.
is re-
govern-
of written
hence
specific objection
where
versible
made to
two-year,
by four-year, not
ed
statute of limi-
charge
account, though party
on such
tations.
objecting
prepare
<&wkey;258(I)Request
for definitions in 17. Trial
relative thereto.
—
exceptions
written
submitting special
issue held sufficient.
ApxJeal
Court,-
from District
Eastland Coun-
Request
phrases,
pay-
for definition of
“in
ty
Davenport, Judge.
; Geo. L.
diligence,”
ing
objections
ting special
and “due
in written
Action
R. C. Stuard and wife
exceptions
submit-
Company. Judg-
the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil
develop-
issue as whether lessee
plaintiffs,
diligence
prov-
appeals.
ment for
until
land
ed
Key-Numhered
<g=5For
all
cases see same
and KEY-NUMBER in
and Indexes
REPORTER, 2d SERIES
SOUTH WESTERN
part,
appellees,
tion. All of the
to-
and reversed
Reversed
gether
marks,
part.
with their file
were introduced
remanded in
in evidence and are
state-
contained
Wightmah,
John Hancock
Clarence
ment
therefore
facts.
appellant.
Worth, for
both of Fort
properly
us
before
to be considered
Antonio,
Bnrkett,
and Milburn
*3
San
Joe
of
along
assignments
with the
of error.
Eastland,
appellees.
McCarty,
for
[1,
appeal
judg
On
2]
the former
the
against appellant
ment rendered
was
one
$30,000
complete
for its failure to drill and
appeal
HICKMAN,
J. This is the second
O.
proper
in workmanlike and
a well on
maimer
only of the
of this case. A brief statement
plaintiffs’ premises. The Fort Worth court
given.
more
For
will be
nature of the case
judgment.
appellees’ appli
reversed that
had to
reference
detailed statement
the
Texas &
they alleged
cation for writ of
as
error
appeal
as
on
former
recorded
the
grounds
jurisdiction
Supreme
in the
Court
&
Stuard et
Coal Oil Co. v.
Pacific
prior
that such decision
in
with
the
482. On
ux.
S. W.
Appeals
decision
the same
Court of
judgment
trial after reversal
Henry
Head,
in
the
Oil
163 S.
Co. v.
$80,000
against appellant
appellees
W.
the decision of
also that it was
conflict with
by
upon three items of
found
based
the
the Court of Civil
$50,000
for the failure
follows:
as
Covington
the Fifth District in the case of
complete
appellant
drill and
a well
to
By dismissing
Jones,
Oil
the
Co.
ap-
proper
upon
manner
workmanlike
jurisdiction,
want
Su
$25,000
nondevelop-
pellees’ premises;
writ^for
preme
no
Court determined that there was
$5,000
premises; and
ment of such
clearly
conflict.
bound
deter
We
complete
appellant properly
well
failure of
mination,
appeal
dispose of this
and it is our
premises and thereafter
No. 1 drilled on said
to
light
holding
thereof.
Such
operate
proper
man-
same in a careful
Supreme
necessarily have
must
.only
between
material difference
ner. The
grounds: First,
upon
been based
that under
was no
drill and
one
two
upon
appellees
provisions
the lease
those
trial the last time and
un-
went to
obligation resting upon appellant
appeal,
upon
der
the former
consideration
second,
complete well; or,
have occasion to take notice
which we shall
had,
appellant
disclosed that
record
allegation
opinion,
in this
an
and the
is the
fact,
ligations.
with its ob
drilled a
in accordance
appellees
contract between
Otherwise,
on
for
the decision
through
appellant, acting
its then
appeal
mer
the decisions
have been
conflict with
would
manager,
general
president
K.
W.
vice
cited,
for it is un
the eases
days
Gordon,
that within 60
the effect
questionably
rule, as
the settled
announced
appel-
said lease the
from the execution
lant
after
premises
cases,
obligates
those
drill a well for
that if one
h’mself to
begin
there-
actual
would
a certain
upon
complete a well
said
drill and
recovery may
so,
fails to do
be had
“McClesky sand,”
through
or to
will not
the cost
be
such
and he
depth,
paying production
and de-
at a lesser
say,
of an
heard to
defense
action
completion
velop
after the
drill,
good
his
that he
faith
failure so
diligence. This ex-
with
said first well
believed that such
would not have
press
been
to have
oral contract
resulted in the
contemporaneously with and in addition
made
quantities.
expressed in the
to the
portion
signing
the
the
[3] That
consideration
as a further
appeal
appellees.
instant
the failure
based
appellant
premises
following provision
drill
a well on the
contains the
The lease
rest,
all, upon
drilling:
addi
must
if at
reference to
with
appellees’
tional oral contract
sec
agree
Company
Pacific
“The Texas &
Coal
original petition,
ond
scribed.
de
amended
above
begin operations
herein leased within
and failure to
land
to drill a well on the
$50,000
This item of
for failure to
days
sixty
from this date
lim
drill
is barred
a well
stand.
begin operations
a for-
will act as
solely
rested
or in
itation.
part
lease contract.”
feit on this
two-year
parol -agreement,
govern,
appeal
former
was in
and more than
record
years elapsed
abandoning
appellant’s pleas of
after
work on
as that
condition
original
filing
well No. 2 before the
could
considered
that,
ap- petition
within the
As
record
to us
herein. The fact
court.
comes
original
setting
period
filing
peal,
up
pleading,
of the
contains a
it
year
petition, appellant
work to be
the two and
statutes of limita-
caused some
four
bettering
rendering
hope
No. 1 in the
tion
judgment
the court’s
on well
done
its
condition,
operate
prevent
damages,
on each of
items of
could
statute,
running
ground
because the evidence
that same were
on the
barred
year
agreement drill
1 fur-
four
statutes of
discloses an
No.
two and
limita-
tlier
er be
forts thereafter
cannot
damages
entitled to
breach
had
by drilling.
it not been breached.
tionably
breach of
crease the
be construed
measures and recover
in
appellant
than the
ure
would be
damages.
that the total amount
deeper
well
that well
and evidence
ease
sand.”
proximately
amount
ages
royalties
and limitation
time.
situation would
realized,
tions and
measure of their
a control head to be
volume of
since the
ther
compensate
ond amended
der the
referred
ed and
than
The
enough pressure
string
of
off
[5-9] There
[10,11]
[4] If the
this
this case.
a
must be
bottom the
appellant
gas, being tbus»confined,
the cost
No.
in this
mentioned,
top
amount
defendant.
sand
holding upon
proved
stand.
the balance of the
top
breach of
money
barred before
is
1
thereafter been
plaintiffs
which
to,
No.
casing high up
joints
proof
a
production well No. 1 could
penalized
Certainly
$50,000
cannot stand. The facts
damages by
original
compensation. Appellees
him for
3,200feet,
of' the inside
cause of
below,
measures of
adopted
they
the correct measure
as efforts
going
is another
this
Clearly they
1 was drilled
fully developed
item of
would
accident,
they
contract
The sole
would
drilling,
made
one well. The
were awarded
happened
hole.
well been drilled and
which it
saw to
*4
cause,
be allowed to add the two
Otherwise,
a
known
encountered. To
as the total
placed upon
his
would have
TEXAS PACIFIC
contract was
the former
which is less
action for
raise
made such amount
which
run
drilling contract;
waste
plaintiff
petition
at which
fit
$5,000
Upon
string
loss,
reason
virtue
the name of actual
then
This item of
developed,
plaintiff
of action
purpose
both,
string
this
string
to a
the entire
are
they
accrued
thereto,
plead
their
soon
their
the defendant
the additional
why
in 1926.
a well
show
depth large
last
it until
as was
and fastened
received
this element
$25,000
not entitled
such
air.
facts
fell back
would have and testified to
in amount
amount
appellant’s
“MeClesky
in such a
destroying
of actual
expensive to
have cost
pleadings
this
premises
damages tracting
was less
hereaft- was
to them
for the element of
that ei
unques
disclose
prevent
are
casing.
allega
caused
A
in the and
plead
$5,000 expressed.
meas
aboye
prove
broke The
COAL OIL
inner
drill
dam of
done
such
item
had
sec and
Un
few
not under
the' curred
the our
ap
ef-
in- head
fil
S.W. (2d)
to written
&
ment for
lees
limitation
would
total value
they
velopment’
amount was
therefrom in the condition under which
ages
the cause
would
of
the
plied
provisions
in
contract
ments
lees
lease.
amount of
addition
sisted
entire
of
clearly expressed,
ably
would otherwise arise are
original petition.
profitably
appellant’s
the settled
ing
duties
our decision
express agreement.
113 Tex.
ises
contract. The
sede the
[12;
[14]
the failure of
the item of
addition thereto
implication,
premises. Appellees
parties
duty
jury upon
awarded
was barred
operated.
above
were awarded
diligently
contained in the
produced
would have
oil
obligation
13]
original petition.
made
This
by appellant
more
certainly
and.
CO. v.
cause,
If
lease involved in
diligently
implications of
obligation,
$25,000
lost
would be to
This
correct
which
circumstances. This
law of
of the written lease
duty, upon
rely upon
the amount
royalties
and became a
obligations
Had the oral
appellant
than two
obligation
necessarily
contemporaneously
appellant.
is whether
STUARD
reference to
action
because
express
law is
written
brings
$25,000
appellant properly
but all
include
limitation.
by appellees
for
ran
this
rule of
there is
received
We also think that
develop, resting upon
it
think,
was an action ex delicto
same could
pleaded
item
$25,000 damages
nondevelopment. Appel-
entire
govern
although
which said well
The exact
develop
before the
state
reverse and render the
us to
oral
was in
lease
purpose
recovered on account
under a
included
such contract.
this
two-year
implications
pleaded
Texas
implications
placing
was the additional
part
the action for
failure "to
express agreement
by expressly
law that
this
superseded by
nothing
confining
that, upon accept
prior
premises.
was therefore
contract
255 W.
measure
It is
a
item.
same.
of the court
case,
should
every
that case
damaged
matter
the minds
contract,
consideration
a
v.Co.
express
contract
with and in
S.
accident
in the
both an
to the
unquestion
the control
oral
the written
statute
producing
developed
it became
to be
definitely
It
if
pleaded
of dam-
develop
derived
govern,
Davis,
of the
which
super
agree
appel-
prem
judg-
is in
That
their
one’s
It
over
con
oral
this
left
im
are
oc-
(2d)-56
7 S.W.
REPORTER,
\yESTI5RN
2d
SOUTH
SERIES-
came
production
ment and
addition
diligence
dent
stances.”
charge appellant
these
ten
to the
instruct
lant
ground, among
with due
unproductive
of limitation.
pleaded
petitions
ment
agree
plication
ploratory
tract and
Special
itation,
ments
implication
ten lease
pellees’ rights
governed
should be denied
poraneous
the
our
They
cations
than an oral
added to nor subtracted
relied
ment with
therefore such
not have been
S.
upon appellant
dependent
283 W.
terms thereof.
Boesen v.
written
required
than was
“Paying quantities
“Has the
Appellees
To this
To the submission of
[17] But we
W.
develop
test
jury
objections and
person under the same or similar circum-
great
state,
S.
timely objected
phrases as follows:
also
may
Appellant
meaning
issue No. 9 submitted
well had
thereto,”
as would
to the
this contention.
and is
diligence until said land operation,
has
issue the
is
as would
required
Potter
this case the
latitude allowed
the lease.
and “due
arises
School
reference to
body
governed
of law and
-jury in connection therewith as
of oil or
contend that as such
develop
as follows:
and relied thereon
a
understanding
doing
disregarded
are unable to affirm
as to this
do not believe
This
others,
is a
agreement
binding,
pleading setting up
Van Zandt
requested
implications
original
not in
and authorities
be used
agreements.
insists that
County
their
jury answered, “No.”
District
exceptions
and a
means
equal
the written
-element
of more
diligence.”
and
that the court
the written
Appellees pleaded this
drilled;
rights
after the
writing.
from the
by reasonably
phrases
development
item of
not of
(Tex.
and
reasonable
agreements
the court to define jury
such an amount of
paying
implications
excepted
diligence
four-year
the written con
nondevelopment.
(Tex.
issue
statute
thei'eof.
determining ap-
limitation.
the
under
believe
Desdemona
first amended
Civ.
These
damages
nothing more
that
contract and
fact,
the court to
In its writ-
less,
quantities?”
duty resting thority
varying
exploratory
“in
implication
We cannot
oral
Civ.
App.)
recovery.
appellees purpose
requests
premises gas
the
profit
develop-
it is
is such
did
contem
paying
neither
proven
excep-
and is
appel-
agree
Under
agree
impli
would the
judg
cited. of
App.)
writ
pru-
lim
im
ex
173 sufficient.
In
fixed.
by
appellant
lant,
enough
on his
clusion that oil
ties to
attached,
tities, appellant’s obligation
if the test well drilled
drilling.
dent
and
v. Dallas Hotel
that from well
than the amount of
tion of
aware of the
thereon discloses the
Article 2189 R.
Holden
failure of the trial court thus to submit them..
tive submission of these
under all of the facts and
That
Co.
essential
upheld
sonable
have drilled a third well
different situations.
structions
cited and
case
ruled.
case of Poster
quested.
S. W.
resting upon
tions
Appellant
“Would
[20] We
We cannot
existence
(Tex.
submission thereof was
that well
justified
to that well same did not
of Texas
phrase
Appellant
say
answer to
issue No.
on that
profit
the
of those cases this
arises.only
If the facts
that the
is further contended that the court
even
followed
to do such additional
This
recognize
obtaining enough
because same were embodied in
that it was not
the facts
This case
earnestly
phrase
Com.
in addition thereto?”
the court
drilling,
agree
has different
ordinarily prudent
fact
and
1No. would have
though by
ground.
1No.
Nursery
v. Atlir
operator»
Co.,
oil and
S.;
would have been discovered
same;
refusing
jury
*5
operation
quantities,
App.) S.W.(2d) 570;
that
charge,
after the test well drilled
such form was held to be
that such refusal can be
judgment that there been We believe Appeals, require adopted the Su- the submis- was sufficient evidence preme Court, conclusively disposing jury. It becomes sion of the to the presented. unnecessary here whether for us to decide opinion great & findings was written is Robertson are so Holden, S.W.(2d) overwhelming weight preponderance Mueller It trial them there held that failure us to set of the aside, as warrant evidence where remanded define term is reversible must be because the ease specific indicated, grounds was made to and the evidence failure, respects another account of such party objecting even in all same pre- to such trial. ably pare many questions dis- relative of law There are parties, fore- To our minds that decision briefs term. of both cussed in any question. other closes this us do not think a discussion Commission, any pur- questions useful The reference of would serve raised opinion judgment pose. Ram- case of Texas Co. v. is our order sower, court, Worth dam- to the decision of the Port in so far as includes the trial Appeals upon ages well No. and Court of a former for the destruction our attention. be re- this case has been called to failure to drill which, appellant, nothing There is our this reference and here rendered versed minds, give portion based any interpretation incon- Port Worth court for failure to given it. sistent with that which we have remanded. be reversed and part. rehearing will be Reversed The motion for overruled. Reversed and rendered part. and iemanded FUNDERBURK, sitting. J., not *6 Rehearing. peals cially] published, erred Ramsower a recent diligence” Appellees original opinion et defining ease al., shall therefore of Texas Co. v. S.W.(2d) 872, “paying furnished insists that our Commission with a the trial court us a Mrs. A. yet holding copy L. hold [offi Ap STEVENS who claimed partnership drew, Partnership partner, v. LILLEY et al. for wife' who promissory <§=5242(7) June 6, 1928. purchased question —Whether Texas. Galveston. subsequently (No. of fact. interest defendant, 9187.) with* preme issues.” in that point charge presents ty sented. submit terms properly was held that law of the and it has opinion. which the struct quest “In In the case In this prepared more submitting Court, case. to include issue, on the pass shall be Article no on the holding case. jury explanations but was define of Texas Co. v. ground a different necessary on the far presented than uniformly held subject. unless the seems definitions objection legal R. S. render a and definitions for a measure of we are to rest is that the did in the terms is on the to The 1925, provides: enable the complaining par- submission the court shall verdict on such advised, Ramsower ground trial statutory, on the terms legal pre- Su- re- in- bers of defendants, terest in nership, purchased finding 2. Husband and sitting drawn ber firm Rev. St. her husband or as member of the file 4626). whose behalf husband interest, band him unaware of his arts. 1070). Partnership. Where In suit Failure of member of on account of county certificate on'withdrawal liable before the debt as 5924-5926; liable as partnership, question behalf jury. partnership, to follow defendant, for determination who claimed wife was clerk art. make him liable for note subsequent partnership of bis <§=241 wife former status partner firm. certificate Pen. interest her <§=97 wife, alleged sued as member —Failure failure to Code did not purchased partnership, to have (Rev. —Failure notes therefore incurred, did not partnership fact member of the in behalf of of the trial court setting forth the whether one of does affect (Rev. St. purchased to have with- comply render arts. partner liable, 1925, status St. creditor sued wife, render mem- mem- 1067- part- wife, with hus- art, file in- Key-Numbered and Indexes in all and KEY-NUMBER cases see same