Case ID: wash_147/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mackintosh, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20937.
    Department One.
    March 13, 1928.]
    H. B. Prentiss, Respondent, v. J. M. Mathews, Appellant, Clarence L. Cobb et al., Defendants.
      
    
    
       Partnership (9) — Creation as to Third Persons — Community of Interest in Property. A partnership is created by an agreement whereby one person agreed to furnish money to others, to be used in the manufacture and sale of an article, for which he was to receive a proportionate share of stock in a corporation to be formed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Douglas, J, entered July 8, 1927, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action to foreclose a chattel lien, tried to the court.
    Affirmed.
    
      Carkeelc, McDonald, Harris S Coryell, for appellant.
    
      Evangeline Starr, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 264 Pac. 1008.
    
   Mackintosh, C. J.

The sole question presented upon this appeal is whether the appellant is liable as a partner for a judgment obtained against himself and the defendants.

This question is answered by an examination of written agreements signed by the appellant and the defendants. From them, it appears that the appellant “is desirous of securing an interest in the profits to be derived from the manufacture and sale of said lantern,” and that the appellant agreed to furnish a sum of money to be used in the manufacture, and the defendants agreed to proceed in the work and to give the appellant a proportionate share of stock in the corporation thereafter to be formed.

Subsequently, the appellant gave an option to the defendants to purchase “all his interest, partnership, or otherwise in and to and appertaining to the firm. . ."

According to these instruments, the parties formed a partnership, and the relation was not that of lender and borrower, or principal and agent.

The facts do not bring the instant case within the operation of the rule announced in State v. Walla Walla Fruit Growers, 140 Wash. 94, 248 Pac. 54.

For that reason, the judgment is affirmed.

French, Parker, Mitchell, and Tolman, JJ., concur.