Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1920-10-27
law COURT HANDS
DOWN RESCRIPTS IN TWO
CUMbERl AND GO, CASES

The following rescrtpts In Cumber-
land county cases have been handed
down by the law court and received
at the ONCE Of the clerk Of courts
Charles w. Jones:
Cumberland County. Albert G..
Thorne VS.. F. c.. johnson Company.
Rescript, Per Curtain.
This is an action to recover dam
ages for personal injuries sustained
by plaintiff while in the employment
Of the defendant in, its business Of
coal and wood dealer. The latter
was not an asserting employer with
in the meaning Of The Workmens'
Compensation Act, and regularly en-
ployed more than Eve men in the
same business in which plaintiff was
employed. The only issue, therefore,
was the alleged negligence Of defen-
| dant.
| It is the opinion Of the court, after
a careful examination Of the evidence.
that the jury were fully justified in
returning q verdict for the plaintiff.
Motion overruled.
Received October 26th, 1920.
Cumberland County. James Bailey
Company VS.. Arthur E. Darling, ct al.
Rescript, Morrill,, j.
Whether partnership exists or
not is an inference Of law from the
established facts, and the relation is
based upon some contract, express or
implied, between the parties.
The mere fact of participation in
profit and loss does not necessarily
constitute partnership; an essential
element of partnership is a COM
munity Of interest in the subject mat
ter of it; but community of interest
alone does not make a partnership.
Such a community Of interest in
wolves community of property as
we'll as Of profit, from which arises
the right Of each partner to make
contracts, incur liabilities. manage
the whole business, and dispose of the
whole property Of the partnership, for
its purposes, in the same manner and
with the same power. as all the part
ners could when acting together,
with the right of the survivors, up
on the death Of partner, to retain
and dispose Of the partnership effects
for the settlement Of its affairs.
However, the rule of partnership
liability may be stated, an agent or
servant, whose compensation is
measured by a certain portion of the
profits Of the business in which he
Is employed. is not thereby made a
partner in the business; and receiv-
ing a share Of such profits in lieu of
or in addition to interest, by way Of
a compensation for a loan Of money,
has Of itself no greater effect.
It is a fair conclusion from the evil
dence that the position of the defen-
dant, Carr, was not that of part
ner, but was that Of a money lender,
| who, having optimistic views of
profits derived from the automobile
business. was willing to measure his
compensation for the accommodation
| by a share in the profits. His ad-
| vances did not constitute capital. In
such case there is no partnership.
| The question, Whether or not it
was generally understood by the peo-
pie in the garage and the customers
that Mr.. Carr and Mr.. Darling were
partners?" was rightly excluded.
Where a witness has been fully eX-
amined on a certain matter, the
right of the presiding Justice in his
discretion to limit further examina-
ton on the same point cannot be
doubted.
Exceptions overruled.
Received October 26th. 1920.