Putnam v. Shoaf
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
620 S.W.2d 510 (1981)
- Written by Ronald Quirk, JD
Facts
Carolyn Putnam owned a one-half partnership interest in the Frog Jump Gin Company (Frog Jump). The other one-half interest in Frog Jump was owned by E.C. and Louise Charlton. All of Frog Jump's assets were held in the name of the partnership. As Frog Jump’s debts increased over time, Putnam decided to sell her partnership interest and get out of the business. John and Maurine Shoaf (defendants) agreed to purchase Putnam’s partnership interest, thereby assuming all her personal liability and partnership debts, if Putnam and the Charltons each paid $21,000 into the partnership account. Putnam and the Charltons paid the money, and the Shoafs assumed Putnam's interest. Putnam conveyed her partnership interest to the Shoafs by a quitclaim deed, including Putnam’s interest in the personal and real property associated with Frog Jump. After the Shoafs acquired Putnam’s interest in Frog Jump, it was discovered that a former bookkeeper had been embezzling from Frog Jump. Frog Jump sued the bookkeeper and banks that had honored the bookkeeper's forged checks. Putnam intervened in the lawsuit, claiming she was entitled to half of any amount recovered by Frog Jump. Putnam died during the litigation. The trial court awarded $68,000 to Frog Jump. The Charltons received one-half of the $68,000 judgment. Putnam's estate (plaintiff) and the Shoafs disputed who was entitled to the other half of the $68,000. The trial court found that Putnam had no interest in the judgment and dismissed the estate's claim. The estate appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nearn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.