Fonda v. Burton & Sowles
Fonda v. Burton & Sowles
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tlie defendants deny that they constituted the Glens Falls Shirt Company, that they were partners, and that they or either of them authorized the purchase of' the lumber described in the plaintiff’s specification, upon their credit or upon the credit of either of them. The referees have found that the lumber was ordered by MacDonald’as agent of the defendants and in their behalf, that it was delivered to the defendants and was used by them in making repairs upon the shirt factory at St. Albans, that the price, about which there is no controversy, was charged to that company, and that the plaintiff understood that he was giving credit to the defendants. They have found that the defendants, after Feb. 15, 1881, were partners in everything connected with their interest in the sliirt manufacturing business, and that the lumber was furnished to them as such partners.
These findings, provided they are based upon legal evidence, are conclusive of the defendants’ liability. The oral evidence admitted was competent to establish these facts unless it was subject to the objection that it changed the terms of certain written contracts made between the defendants and Foster on the one side and MacDonald on the other, by which the former parties were to establish the latter in business at St. Albans under the name of the Glens Falls Shirt Company. The oral evidence tended to show and from it the referees found that the plan contemplated by the contract, by which MacDonald was to be the Company, was subsequently changed, and that the defendants assumed the management of the business and virtually became the Company themselves.
' The plaintiff was not a party to the written agreements, and, evidence offered by him tending to show who in fact constituted the Company when the lumber was delivered, was clearly admissible. The written agreements were conclusive upon no one but the parties to them. Wait v. Wait, 28 Vt. 350 ; Morse v. Huntington, 40 Vt. 488.
Tlie doctrine of estoppel has no application in this case. The subscription paper recites that MacDonald was engaged in the business of manufacturing shirts at Glens Falls, under tlie name of the Glens Falls Shirt Company, and that he was to remove the business to St. Albans and carry it on under the same name in the Tremont House, which ivas to be purchased for that purpose with the money subscribed. The fact that the plaintiff signed the subscription paper in which MacDonald "is called the company did not bar him from showing that afterwards other persons became that' company and that he sold and delivered goods to them. The fact that the chattel mortgage was given by
At the inception of this enterprise the defendants were the owners of the Tremont House property which was called of the value of $10,000. The defendants were treated as - contributing $4,000 and the subscribers $G,000. It was provided in the subscription paper that, on the failure of MacDonald to carry out his part of the contract, Foster, the trustee, should re-convey four-tenths of the property to the defendants and six-tenths to the subscribers. The subscriptions therefore belonged to the defendants in payment of the $6,000 interest in the property which the subscribers acquired. This sum the defendants were to have whether the enterprise succeeded or not. The referees have not found that the enterprise failed of success through the defendants’ fault or mismanagement; on the contrary, they express the opinion that the plaintiff’s $100 subscription should be applied in part payment of his account. It is apparent from the facts that are reported that the defendants found it necessary to change the plan first contemplated for conducting the business in consequence of the changed condition of MacDonald’s affairs or his lack of business efficiency. The case discloses nothing that dis-entitles the defendants to receive the $100 which the plaintiff subscribed.
Judgment reversed, and judgment on the report for the plaintiff to recover $82j.7S, and interest.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- W. B. FONDA v. BURTON & SOWLES
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published