State v. Grumbles

Supreme Court of South Carolina March 13, 1915

State v. Grumbles, 84 S.E. 783 (S.C. 1915)

100 S.C. 238; 1915 S.C. LEXIS 40

Gage

Opinion of the Court

The opinion was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gage.

Indictment and conviction and judgment for breach of trust with fraudulent intent. Appeal by defendant..

There are two exceptions, but only one issue.

There was no testimony for the defense, and only one witness for the State upon the issue in the case, and that the prosecutor, Chastain.

The defendant’s contention is, that the testimony of Chastain, direct and cross, made a case of partnership betwixt Chastain and Grumbles to buy and trade and sell cows.

The exact and practical contention is, that the testimony was susceptible of that inference and only that inference; and that the Court ought to have so held and to have directed a verdict of not guilty.

1 2 Of colarse, if the two men were copartners there could be no conviction under the indictment. The Court submitted to the jury as one of the issues in the case whether or not the testimony of Chastain made out a case of partnership; and the Court instructed the jury what constituted a partnership; but the Court declined to tell the jury that the testimony certainly made a case of partnership.

*242 We think the judgment of the Court thereabout is correct.

Copartnership is a factitious relationship betwixt two or more parties; and its existence depends upon the agreement between the parties; and the agreement may be established by parol.

3 There is a lucid statement of the law of partnership in Price v. Middleton, at 75 S. C. 108, 55 S. E. 156, et seq. There is no need to repeat it here.

Measured by the rules there stated it is not certain that the relationship which existed betwixt Chastain and Grumbles constituted them partners.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: State v. Grumbles.
Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Criminal Law, Larceny After Breach of Trust With Fraudulent Intent. Partnership. Charge. Issues. Definition. 1. Criminal Law—Larceny After Breach of Trust.—-A copartner cannot be convicted of larceny after breach of trust committed with reference to the copartnership property. 2. Partnership—Issues.—Whether a partnership exists between two or more persons is dependent upon the agreement between them, and whether the parol testimony in the case at bar established it, was properly submitted to the jury, with instructions as to what facts, if established, would constitute such relationship. . 3, Embezzlement—Breach of Trust—-Partnership—Evidence.-—-In a prosecution for breach of trust with fraudulent intent, evidence held to take to the jury the question, whether a partnership existed between defendant and prosecutor which would be a defense to the prosecution. 4. Criminal Law—Parol Evidence—“Partnership.”—“Copartnership” is a factitious relationship between two or more persons, and its existence depends on the agreement between the parties and the agreement may be establishd by parol. 5. Partnership—Definition.—The statement in Price v. Middleton $• Ravenel, 75 S. C. 108, 55 S. E. 156, as to what constitutes a partnership followed and approved.