Case ID: cal_178/html/0302-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WILBUR, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[L. A. No. 4189.
    Department Two.
    May 24, 1918.]
    E. M. BROWN, Respondent, v. FRANKLIN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA (a Corporation), Appellant.
    Insurance—Fire Insurance Policy—Assignment of Interest in Insured Property—Agreement for Share of Profits.—An agreement by the owner of a stock of goods with an agent and employee, by the terms of which the latter was to be paid a salary and a proportion of the profits, but was not to share in the losses, was not an assignment of an interest in the property, which would prevent the owner from recovering upon a fire insurance policy in the property.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John S. Mitchell, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      Hindman & Yakey, for Appellant.
    G. C. De Garmo, for Respondent.
   WILBUR, J.

This is an action to recover upon a fire insurance policy upon a stock of goods destroyed by fire. The question raised is whether or not there was an assignment of an interest in the property by plaintiff to one Stewart, or such a change of possession as would prevent plaintiff recovering under the terms of the policy. The court found that plaintiff owned the property. The evidence is that he purchased the store and paid therefor, and installed Stewart as his agent and employee in charge thereof, permitting Stewart to conduct the business in the latter’s name as owner, under an agreement by which Stewart was to receive $125 a month and was to be given a half interest in the business as soon as the profits amounted to two thousand dollars (the estimated value of a half interest in the business). This was an agreement of employment, by which the employee was to be paid upon the basis of a stated salary and a proportion of the profits. He was not to share in the losses and his ownership in the business was contingent upon the profits amounting to enough to purchase a half interest therein. The finding of the court that Brown owned the property is supported by the evidence.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Melvin, J., and Victor B. Shaw, J., pro tem., concurred.