Citation Numbers: 189 Iowa 1352
Judges: Evans, Preston, Salinger, Weaver
Filed Date: 4/6/1920
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
The plaintiff and the defendant R. N. Thomas entered into a certain partnership agreement, whereby they operated under the firm name of R. N. Thomas and R. N. Thomas Company. -The partnership agreement was reduced to writing, but never signed. The contents of the writing are accepted, however, by both sides, as substantially correct. The agreement provided for a term of five years, beginning with January 2, 1906, and ending January 2, 1911. The partners were brothers-in-law. The defendant Thomas was the inventor of a husking peg, and had duly obtained patent for his device. The business
The circumstances attending the termination of plain
The facts that the partnership was originally for a fixed term, and that it was later continued for an indefinite period, and that its continuance Avas, therefore, subject to the Avill of either partner, and that the plaintiff did cease his personal connection with it about January 1, 1914, are circumstances Avhich tend to sustain the defendant’s contention. If the business of the partnership involved only the personal service and earnings of the partners, such circumstances Aviould be quite persuasive in support of the defendant’s contention. But capital was involved. Profits Avere to accumulate. Though plaintiff invested the larger amount of capital, he Avas to receive only 40 per cent of the profits, and defendant 60 per cent. The agreement expressly provided the manner of dissolution, and the settlement at the close of the partnership. The working tools and machinery of the factory were to be taken by the defendant at cost price, less a specified discount. The plaintiff’s capital, if unimpaired by losses, Avas to be returned, and his share of the profits to be paid. Nothing of this kind was done; nor was anything of the kind proposed or discussed,' prior to about January, 1917. During the three intervening years, the plaintiff’s capital carried, the risk of the business, and he himself was undoubtedly liable as a member of the firm to all the creditors thereof. The salary of the defendant Thomas continued, and the plaintiff necessarily bore his share of it. The plaintiff Avaived his salary, and permitted it to be utilized in the payment of someone else to do the work. Such a situation AVould not necessarily work inequitably, as betAveen the partners. Thomas never complained thereof, nor did he ever propose an actual termination of the partnership. In view of the circumstances here indicated,
The appellant makes no complaint of items allowed by the trial court in the accounting. His complaint is directed to the finding of the continuation of the partnership up to January 1, 1917. The trial court found the amount due plaintiff as capital and profits, up to the date of the termination, as approximately $8,700. The fact that so substantial a sum was left by plaintiff and retained by defendant as a part of the firm assets, without the issue to plaintiff of any evidence- of -indebtedness except the unsigned partnership agreement, is itself a very persuasive circumstance in support of the alleged continuance of the partnership.
The record is too voluminous for us to deal with in great detail. We are satisfied of the correctness of -the decree of the district court. It is, accordingly, — Affirmed.