Heye v. Tilford

This action was brought by the executor of Alexander M. Lawrence against John C. Giles and Francis S. Marbury, as executor of George P. Lawrence, to obtain an accounting of the affairs of the firm of Lawrence & Giles. The executor of George P. Lawrence was made a party, but, as stated in the case, simply for the reason that, without him, the suit could not be maintained, and it was made to appear that George P. Lawrence had paid over to the estate of Alexander M. Lawrence all he owed, and for that reason no relief was asked against him. The executor of George P. Lawrence, in his answer, asked affirmative relief against Giles; but, upon the dismissal of the complaint, no notice was taken of his prayer, and, as he has not appealed, no further attention need be given to that branch of the case.

The action was begun against Giles in his lifetime. He died after his answer had been served, and his executors were substituted as the defendants in his place. The foundation of the action, and the fact which lay at the bottom of the claim of relief on the part of the plaintiff, was that Alexander M. Lawrence had been, since 1857, a partner in the several firms which had conducted the business under the name of Lawrence, Giles & Co., and of which, it was conceded, on all hands, that the sons of Alexander M. Lawrence, from time to time, and the defendant John 0. Giles, all the time, were members. The complaint alleged that Alexander M. Lawrence was a member of the firm through all the years during which it continued under various names, and, basing his cause of action upon that fact, the plaintiff demands,.as relief, that the defendant Giles account for the partnership transactions so far as it was necessary to establish his liability, and pay over to the executor of Lawrence whatever sum should be found due to him from Giles. It asks no judgment against the other members of the firm. The action was referred to a referee, and, after a large amount of testimony had been taken, the referee directed that the complaint be dismissed. The decision was the usual short form of decision, and the grounds upon which the complaint was dismissed were that the plaintiff had failed to establish that Alexander M. Lawrence was a partner in the firm of Lawrence, Giles & Co., and that accounts of that firm had been balanced and settled as of the date of the death of Alexander M. Lawrence, and the balance due from Giles was fixed and determined thereby, and any claim- against the executors of Giles in respect thereto had been barred by the statute of limitations.

The right to an accounting in this case on the part of the plaintiff was claimed solely because of the existence of the partnership,

The question presented here is whether the plaintiff has shown that these persons had formed a partnership inter sese. In considering that question, it must be recollected that the same rules do not apply which are invoked where a third person claims that those engaged in a joint adventure are liable as partners. Individuals may be charged as partners, as to third persons, by voluntarily and knowingly sharing in the profits of the business, or holding themselves out as partners, and thus inducing a credit on the faith of the supposed partnership. Such a liability may be created as to third persons by an equitable estoppel. But, when it is sought to be established on a footing of contract of partnership between the parties, an agreement must be shown, and it will not be implied from the joint ownership of property, nor will the relation arise by operation of law. Bank v. Walker, 66 N. Y. 424 , 428; Leggett v. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272 , 278; Hazard v. Hazard, 1 Story, 371 , 373, Fed. Cas. No. 6,279. This distinction is well settled, and must be carefully borne in mind whenever the question arises as to the existence of a partnership. Whenever, in an action between two persons alleged to be partners, a partnership is sought to be proved, the decision of the question depends entirely upon the intention of the parties as legally ascertained. That does not mean a mere arbitrary intention. If the terms of the contract between the parties are fixed and certain, the question of partnership is

“Persons cannot be made to assume the relation of partners, as between themselves, when their purpose is that no partnership shall exist. There is no reason why they may not enter into an agreement whereby one of them shall participate in the profits arising from the management of particular property without his becoming a partner with the others.”

This utterance of the court was approved by the same court in the later case of Paul v. Cullum, 132 U. S. 539 , 10 Sup. Ct. 151 . The same rule has been laid down in this state. Salter v. Ham, supra. In the English court of appeal it was held that, while the agreement for participation in profit and loss was prima facie evidence of a partnership between the contracting parties, as between themselves, yet the question of a partnership must in all cases depend upon the intention of the parties as it appears in the contract. Walker v. Hirsch, 27 Ch. Div. 460. It appears, from these cases, that the rule is thoroughly well settled; and when the question is presented whether two people have entered into a partnership between themselves, the court must look at the contract, as explained by their own transactions and statements, and ascertain whether it was their intention to become partners, if the intention cannot be conclusively drawn from the terms of the contract which they have made.

In this ease the original parties to the transaction are all dead. The contract, whatever it was, was never reduced to writing, and there is no direct evidence, so far as appears, as to the precise terms upon which they were in business together. We can only look at their acts and declarations, and from them come to a conclusion whether or not the plaintiff has established, by a fair preponderance of evidence,' that Alexander M. Lawrence was a partner in these several firms. It appears, from the evidence, that, about the 1st of October, 1857, a partnership was formed in Hew York, the firm name of which was Lawrence, Giles & Co. Everybody concedes that John S. Lawrence, George P. Lawrence, and John C. Giles were members of that firm. Alexander M. Lawrence was the father of the two Lawrences who were in the firm. He had been a shipping merchant and importer in Hew York, and owned con

On the other hand, we have the fact that, after his death, in June, 1882, George P. Lawrence and John C. Giles carried on the business under the same name until the death of George P. Lawrence in 1891. During all the years from 1857 until his death, Alexander M. Lawrence took no part in the transaction of the business of the firm. He continued his own importing and shipping business, for which a distinct set of books was kept. In 1867 he took a deed of the premises No. 11 William street, where the business of the firm was carried on at that time, and executed a declaration of trust wherein he recited that he held the premises in trust for the benefit of the firm of Lawrence, Giles & Co., and that he had no beneficiary interest therein, and he entered into a covenant with George P. Lawrence, John S. Lawrence, and John C. Giles, recited as composing the firm of Lawrence, Giles & Co., that he and his heirs would hold the premises in conformity with the provisions of the declaration of the trust. In the year 1875, after very heavy losses had occurred in the firm, Alexander Lawrence asked the bookkeeper one day what the amount of losses had been, and, having been informed, told the bookkeeper that he would have to give the boys some more money to go on with the business. In March, 1881, Alexander M. Lawrence, testifying before a referee in an action in which, so far as appears, he had no reason to say anything but the truth on this point, swore that the firm of Lawrence, Giles & Co. was, in 1867, composed of John S. Lawrence, George P. Lawrence, and John C. Giles, and that he (Alexander M. Lawrence) had never had any interest in that firm, and was in no way connected with it. His will, which was dated on the 27th of April, 1881, contained a provision reciting that he had a considerable sum of money loaned to the firm of Lawrence, Giles & Co.,

Upon a careful consideration of this testimony, it seems to us that the referee was correct in the conclusion which he reached, that Alexander M. Lawrence was not a partner in this firm. While the evidence, from the sharing in the profits and losses and the general connection had by A. M. Lawrence, was weighty, as tending to show that he was a partner,- and would .probably charge him with the liabilities arising from that relation ip an action brought by a third person upon a contract with the firm, yet it cannot be disputed that he never regarded himself as a partner, and, whenever he was asked about it, so far as appears, denied that the relation existed. All the facts are entirely consistent with some other relation, and upon the whole case we agree with the referee that the plaintiff failed to establish the burden of proving that the partnership existed. That being so, the plaintiff was not entitled to an accounting. Salter v. Ham, 31 N. Y. 321 ; Arnold v. Angell, 62 N. Y. 508 ; Hazard v. Hazard, 1 Story, 373 , Fed. Cas. No. 6,279.

It is claimed, however, by the plaintiff, that, although no partnership relation was shown to exist, Alexander M. Lawrence was still entitled to an accounting, as one who was engaged with the firm of Lawrence, Giles & Co. in a joint adventure. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff does not ask relief against the firm of Lawrence, Giles & Co., but only against one of the members of that firm. He says that, having been a partner in that firm, he has, as to the result of the transactions thereof, become a creditor of Giles, and he demands an accounting, and the payment of that debt. Unless the relation of partner was established, he shows no right to an accounting from Giles, or to the payment of any sum by Giles to him. That fact, then, as we have said, lies at the basis of this cause of action, and the cases above cited establish that, when a claim to an accounting is based solely upon the existence of a partnership, and that fact is not made to appear, the complaint must be dismissed. The case of Arnold v. Angelí is decisive on that point. In thát case, the action was brought for an accounting upon an allegation that the plaintiff and the defendant were copartners, and the relief demanded was that the copartnership be dissolved, and that there be an accounting and a division of the proceeds. The judge, at the trial, found that there was no partnership, but that, in spite of that fact, because there was a joint adventure, the plaintiff was entitled to an account of the business. The interlocutory judgment entered upon this finding was affirmed at the general term. Arnold v. Angell, 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 27 . Upon appeal to the court of appeals from the order entered upon this decision of the general term, the judgment was reversed; the court

For these reasons, and without considering the other question passed upon by the referee, we are of the opinion that this case was properly decided, and that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.