Scribd
Upload
161 views2 pages

Sison v. McQuaid

Sergio Sison and Helen McQuaid were partners in a lumber business. Sison alleged that McQuaid owed him $6,900 which was his share of the profits from a sale of lumber to the U.S. Army. The trial court dismissed the case because Sison did not allege that the partnership business had been liquidated and his share of overall profits determined. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the complaint did not state a valid cause of action, as profits cannot be determined from a single transaction without deducting all costs and examining all business dealings.

Uploaded by

alyssa limboc
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
161 views2 pages

Sison v. McQuaid

Sergio Sison and Helen McQuaid were partners in a lumber business. Sison alleged that McQuaid owed him $6,900 which was his share of the profits from a sale of lumber to the U.S. Army. The trial court dismissed the case because Sison did not allege that the partnership business had been liquidated and his share of overall profits determined. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the complaint did not state a valid cause of action, as profits cannot be determined from a single transaction without deducting all costs and examining all business dealings.

Uploaded by

alyssa limboc
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/ 2

SERGIO SISON vs.

HELEN MCQUAID
Doctrine:
Settlement of Accounts between partners after dissolution NCC Art 1839
Facts:
Sision was alleging that Mcquaid borrowed from him various sums of money
amounting to 2,210 for payment to Bureau of Forestry and for capital in her
lumber business.
Mcquaid defaulted and proposed to take Sison as her partner in her lumber
business and to contribute to the partnership the sum of 2,2010. Sison agreed.
In accordance with said contract, Sison, together with defendant, rendered
services to the partnership without compensation from June 15, 1938 to
December, 194. Before the last World War, the partnership sold to the United
States Army 230,000 board feet of lumber for P13,800, for the collection of
which sum defendant, as manager of the partnership, filed the corresponding
claim with the said army after the war. The claim was "finally" approved and
the full amount but defendant has persistently refused to deliver one-half of it,
or P6,900, to plaintiff notwithstanding repeated demands, investing the whole
sum of P13,800 for her own benefit.
Plaintiff, therefore, prays for judgment declaring the existence of the alleged
partnership and requiring defendant to pay him the said sum of P6,900, in
addition to damages and costs

CFI- dismissed the case. It does not allege that there has been a liquidation of
the partnership business and the said sum has been found to be due him as
his share of the profits.
Issue: whether Sision can claim his share of the profits
Held: No. order of dismissal is affirmed, but on the ground that the complaint
states no cause of action and without prejudice to the filing of an action for
accounting or liquidation should that be what plaintiff really wants.
Ruling:
The complaint states no cause of action. The proceeds from the sale of a
certain amount of lumber - cannot be considered profits until costs and

SERGIO SISON vs. HELEN MCQUAID


expenses have been deducted. Moreover, the profits of a business cannot be
determined by taking into account the result of one particular transaction
instead of all the transactions had. Hence, the need for a general liquidation
before a member of a partnership may claim a specific sum as his share of the
profits

You might also like