First National Bank v. Gitt & Delone
First National Bank v. Gitt & Delone
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
This is an appeal from the refusal of the court below to take off a judgment of compulsory nonsuit. The action was assumpsit brought to recover from the defendants, as partners, the amount of two certain promissory notes made by L. M. Long & Co. to .the order of S. L. Johns Cigar Company, and endorsed in that name by H. N. Gitt, and by H. N. Gitt personally. In plaintiff’s statement of claim it was averred that, on the dates of the notes in question, “H. N. Gitt and Charles J. Delone were copartners, trading and doing business under the name of S. L. Johns Cigar Company,” and that the notes
The defendant Gitt made no defense to plaintiff’s demand, but Charles J. Delone filed an affidavit of defense, in which he denied that he was a copartner with Gitt, or had traded as S. L. Johns Cigar Company, or was in any way liable on the notes in suit.
Upon the trial, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the court entered judgment of compulsory nonsuit, upon the ground that no partnership had been made out, and no liability upon the part of Delone had been established. Plaintiff’ has appealed, and its counsel contend that the evidence offered was sufficient to establish the fact that the defendants purchased property which they employed for their mutual profit, and that the obligations, upon which this action was brought, were incurred in the management of a business from which they were jointly entitled to the net profits, and in which, it is argued, they were, therefore, partners.
In an article of agreement which was offered in evidence, it was set forth that, being desirous of relief from the cares growing out of the involved condition of his business affairs, S. L. Johns, upon the conditions named, turned over his entire estate to Gitt and Delone for the purpose of administration. They were to convert the property into cash as in their judgment should be advisable. The proceeds were to be applied, first in payment of the claims of creditors, then in payment of an annuity to Johns for ten years, and after that the fixed sum of $40,000 was to be paid to him. In addition they were to pay to Johns or his heirs such sum as should be necessary to acquire a clear title to his residence and contents, and to a certain farm property with stock and implements. Provision for the payment of certain other sums was also made, and if Gitt and Delone succeeded in
In their argument, counsel for appellant make specific complaint of the action of defendant Delone in retaining certain shares of telephone company stock which were obtained as partial security upon the indebtedness of L. M. Long, evidenced in part by the notes in question. We do not see, however, that this has anything to do with the question of partnership. Under the agreement, it was the duty of Gitt and Delone to collect this indebtedness, as well as all other sums due to Johns, and as trustees they are liable to account to Johns, and perhaps to his creditors, for the moneys they received. But in the present suit the effort is to hold them as partners, and not as trustees.' Our examination of the record leads us to agree with the conclusion of the court below that the evidence does not show that there was any understanding between Gitt and Delone as to any sharing of profits, nor does it appear that Delone in any way gave plaintiff reason to believe that any partnership existed between Gitt and himself. The nonsuit was properly entered, and the refusal to take it off was justified.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- First National Bank v. Gitt and Delone
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Partnerships — Existence of partnership — Evidence—Insufficiency —Going business — Assignment to alleged partners — Status of Assignees — Trustees—Assignment for creditors — Accounting—Commissions — Tenants in common — Sharing of profits — Promissory notes — Nonsuit. 1. A division of the product of property between tenants in common does not make them partners, although they may have contributed labor or money to raise it. 2. In an action on promissory notes against two defendants as copartners it appeared that the owner of a going business entered into a written agreement with the defendants under which he turned over his entire estate to them for the purpose of administration ; that they were to convert the property into cash and apply the proceeds first to the payment of the claims of creditors, then to the payment of an annuity to the assignor, then to other purposes specified; and that defendants were to retain for themselves the residue which might he left after such payments had been made. It did not appear that any profits were made, or that the business was carried on for that purpose or that there was any understanding between the defendants as to the sharing of profits, or that they held themselves out as partners to the plaintiff. . The notes in question were given by one defendant and represented an old indebtedness of the assignor’s business, such defendant endorsing the notes in the business name and individually. The other defendant had nothing to do with the negotiation of the notes. Held, the defendants were not partners hut trustees, and á compulsory nonsuit was properly entered as to the defendant who' did not endorse the note. 3. The transaction was in the nature of an assignment for the benefit of creditors, involving an accounting; the residue representing commissions of the assignees.