Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-07-30
SUPREME COURT.
FULL TEXT OF DECISIONS FILED.
John c. Becit, appellant. as. Frank Hankey
md Nc Horn, Respondents.
0DTNTNN

John c. Becht, appellant, as. Frank Haaskea
md Nc Horn. Respondents.
OPINION.
From the evidence in this case it appears that
the sheep in controversy were bought in Chi
cago by Hankey with the proceeds of three
car loads of cattle, sent from st. Paul to CHI
cago and there disposed of by Hankey through
his agent at that place; of the three car loads
of cattle one belonged to Hankey alone; in
one he was interested with Horn, and the othec
had been purchased by Arimund, the execut; on
debtor. With money furnished by Hankey un-
der an agreement by which Hankey was to
furnish the money, Alimund to buy the cattle
and bring them to st. Paul, and they were
then to be shipped to and sold in Chicago, and
the parties were to divide the profits equally
This agreement made them partaens in the
business of buying aud selling the cattle end
also in the ownership of the cattle with the
price of this Car load and part of the price Of
the other car loads. Hankey bought the sheep
and had them thought to st. Paul. The cattle
were shipped to Chicago and sold and the sheep
bought and shipped to st. Paul in the name OF
Haukey alone After the sheep arrived in ST.
Paul Hankey and Arimund made an agree
ment by Which the latter was to kill and sell
the sheep and they We're to divide the p1otits on
the sheep equally. AS the defendant levied on
the sheep upon an execution against Arimund
the qrestlon III the case is, was he a partner in
the owue. ship of the sheep. He might have
been parlrer in the business of preparing the
sheep forsaie and selling them without having
any ownership in the sheep themselves, one
may be partner in a business in the profits
arising from it without being partner or paet
owner in the property with which it is ca, ied
on.
Story on Part, Sec. 54-55-56. Parsons on
Part, p. AZ. Wish VS.. Small L, Camp, 331. TT
pGf'te Hamper Vesey, Jr., 403. Blanchard VS..
Coolidge, 20 Pick. IL.
The court below instructed the jury that the
mere fact that Arimund was to have gu inte,-
est in the profits of the sheep after they were
slaughtered and sold would not give bin a
leviable interest in the sheep themselves This
is in accordance with the rule we have stated.
The court further Instructed the jury that
unless these sheep wee bought with the pro-
ceeds of the cattle with the Understanding on
the part Of Arimund that his profits We're 70
go into them or unless after they were bought
he agreed with Hankev that his interest in The
profits should be considered as represented by
the sheppard that he was to have an interest
in the sheep, then he had no interest in the
property which could be levied upon by the
sheriff
This is simply statement of the
proposition that Arimund could not
ice made owner of an interest in the sheep
and bound by the investment in them of his
share of the profits in the cattle, without his
consent either previously or subsequently given
as to the correctness of which proposition no
question be made, nor can there be any
question that he knew and consented either be-
fore or after the purchase Of the sheep to ri1e
investment in their purchase of his snare of the
profits on the cattle that he became an owner
of an interest in them. That he did know and
consent both before and after the pnrcna.e is
SO clearly shown that the jury must have mis-
apprehended the evidence in finding as they i'd
Arlmund in his testimony states: II knew Of
my own knowledge what became of the n-o-
ceeds of the cattle. | was present at the time
the transaction transpi,ed at Hall and Patter-
sons (these were the Chicago agents who SOLD
the cattle and bought the sneep) as much as |
knew they sold the cattle for the sheep for the
amount they realized from the cattle. Hall
and Patterson told me he had a
nice lot of sheep he thought it would be profit
able to buy, and l told him to show them to
me, SO could tell NJ ;. Hankey What kind of
sheep they We're" The is no contradiction
OF this evidence. The sheep were bought witch
the proceeds of the cattle and sent to ST. Paul
and after their arrival there the arrangement
with Hankey and Arimund for the slaughter
and sale and sharing the profits, was made 1t
nowhere appears that Hankev's right to invest
the whole proceeds of the cattle in purchasing
the sheep was ever questioned between the
parties. Nor does it appear that Arimund's
interest in the sheep ever denied till the
sheriff came to levy on them. The verdict is
contrary to the evidence and must be set aside.
Order reversed and new tr:"l ordered.
G1LFJLLAN, G. j.