Case Name: John H. Sheehan, Survivor, App'lt, v. David W. Fleetham, Impl'd, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-11-28
Citations: 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 665
Docket Number: 
Parties: John H. Sheehan, Survivor, App’lt, v. David W. Fleetham, Impl’d, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 34
Pages: 665–671

Head Matter:
John H. Sheehan, Survivor, App’lt, v. David W. Fleetham, Impl’d, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed November 28, 1890.)
Partnership—Facts authorizing inference of.
When one carrying on a business of buying and selling assigns half of the property, including accounts, to another, and goes on with the buying and selling as before with the knowledge of the assignee, there is strong evidence from which a jury may infer that the assignee is a partner.
(Mayham, J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant, entered on verdict directed by the court.
This action was brought by John H. Sheehan and Philip Sweeney, as partners, to recover the amount' of an account alleged in the complaint to be due from the defendants as copartners.
The defendant Hutchins failed to answer, and the defendant Fleetham answered denying the existence of any copartnership with Hutchins, and Hutchins had no right or authority to bind him as such or to create any liability on his part to the plaintiff.
Pending the action, Sweeney, one of the plaintiffs, died, and the action was prosecuted by Sheehan, as survivor.
The case discloses that in 1886 the defendant Hutchins, in partnership with one Aldrich, opened a drug store and continued the business until June, 1888, when Aldrich sold out his interest, talcing Hutchins’ note for the same, and soon thereafter the defendant Fleetham gave his check to take up the note.
The case does does not disclose who negotiated the purchase of Aldrich's interest, nor to whom it was transferred, except as the same may be inferred from the fact that Hutchins gave his note, which was, however, paid -by Fleetham by his check. After the purchase of Aldrich’s interest Hutchins continued the business in his own name.
On the 27th of October, 1888, Hutchins informed defendant Fleetham, who was his brother-in-law, that he was about to be sued, and proposed to turn his interest in the drug store over to Fleetham, to protect the creditors of the store, and on that day a “ bill of sale ” was executed by Hutchins to Fleetham of all the right, title and interest of Hutchins in the store, goods, furniture, fixtures, accounts and' interest of Hutchins in the drug business, in which property he asserts, in said bill, that he is the one-half owner.
The consideration expressed was $1,800, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the assuming and payment of Hutchins’ one-half indebtedness for drugs, goods and all property connected with the drug business carried on by vendor, in Canton.
The case does not show that this paper was personally delivered to Fleetham, but the same seems to have been brought to his knowledge by Hutchins.
On the 28th of February, 1889, the defendant, Fleetham, executed a “ bill of sale ” of the property mentioned in the bill of sale to him, and upon a like consideration, to Helen Hutch-ins, wife of defendant Hutchins, which was filed in the St. Lawrence county clerk’s office on the 13th day of March, 1889.
This “ bill of sale ” was never delivered personally to the vendee named in it, but was executed by Fleetham and filed by him without the knowledge either of Hutchins or his wife.
There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Fleetham ever treated Hutchins- as a partner or in any manner recognized the existence of that relation with him.
The plaintiff gave evidence tending to establish that relation, and defendant Fleetham positively denied the existence of that relation in his testimony, and gave evidence that Hutchins, after .the dissolution of the partnership with Aldrich, conducted all the business in bis own name, and that plaintiff charged the account in suit to him solely.
At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint.
The plaintiff at the same time asked the court to direct a verdict for the amount of the plaintiff’s claim.
The trial judge held and decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and directed a verdict for the defendant.
The plaintiff thereupon asked the court to submit to the jury or find that the plaintiff relied upon the statement made in the “ bill of sale.”
Also asked the court to submit to the jury the proposition, that the fact that Hutchins made this bill of sale to Fleetham, who permitted the business to go on in Hutchins’ name, Fleetham having knowledge of the fact, rendered him liable to any person who sold goods to Hutchins knowing that he was a half owner.
Also to send to the jury the question whether the parties were actual partners.
Also requested the court to give the jury the question that the parties being engaged in committing a fraud were liable to persons injured thereby.
Each of the plaintiff’s requests were refused by the court and the plaintiff duly excepted.
Nelson L. Robinson, for app’lt; George G. Sawyer, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.
This is aá action for goods sold and delivered. The learned trial justice directed a verdict for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
Hutchins, one of the defendants, had carried on a drug business. He also had a half interest in the furniture business carried on by defendant Fleetham, brother of Hutchins wife.
On the 27th of October, 1888, Hutchins being in danger of a suit executed to Fleetham an assignment of all the drugs, fixtures, furniture and accounts, etc. " of which said property I am the one-half owner." The assignment was in consideration of Fleetham's assuming and paying off " my one-half indebtedness for drugs, goods and all property connected with the drug business of which I am the half owner." The business continued in the same name.
On the 13th of March, 1889, Fleetham executed an assignment to Hutchins' wife. This recited the assuming and paying " of my one-half indebtedness for drugs, goods and all property connected with the drug business,'' etc., " of which I am one-half owner " and conveyed to Mrs. Hutchins all of Fleetham's right in the drugs, etc., and accounts " of which I am one-half owner."
The plaintiff's firm from June 2, 1888, to March 8, 1889, sold goods for this drug store amounting to $644.84. There was paid to them October 3, 1888, $120; February 5, 1889, $100.
About the 1st of November they learned through a commercial agency of the sale by Hutchins to Fleetham. In reliance on that information they made the subsequent sales.
Their account was still kept in the name of Hutchins. About April 16, 1889, plaintiff saw Fleetham, and asked him if he was a half owner of Hutchins' drug store, and he said he was.
Mr. Bookstaver, a witness, testified that about that time he saw Fleetham, and asked him if he was not a partner in the Hutchins concern; he replied that he was a half owner; had been a half owner from June previous till October (as the witness thought), then that he bought out the other half and owned the whole; that he had sold out the business or was about to sell out the business that day. Being asked why he was not going to pay the claim represented by Mr. Bookstaver, he said that while he was a partner, he wás not liable, because he had not ordered Hutchins to buy these particular goods, and had not ordered them himself.
The witness says that Fleetham told him distinctly that he was a partner from J une previous till a certain period; the witness thought October; then that he purchased the balance and became sole owner. Mr. Kenyon testifies to the same effect.
Thus we have the testimony of these witnesses that Fleetham admitted that he was a partner in the business from June, 1888, and that in October (as the witness thinks) he bought out the balance and became the sole owner.
With these statements the assignment from Hutchins harmon-' izes, inasmuch as Hutchins calls himself the half owner and speaks of Fleetbam's securing and paying Hutchins' " one half indebtedness." Who was the other half owner and whose the other half indebtedness ?
It is true that Fleetham denies that he said what these three witnesses state; but that made a question for the jury.
It is undoubted that from October 27, Fleetham was either half owner, or whole owner, of 'the business and property, including the accounts and account book.
Of course it is possible for two persons to be joint owners of property, and yet not partners. But when one carrying on a business of "buying and selling, assigns half of the property, including accounts, to another, and goes on with the buying and selling as before with the knowledge of the assignee, there is quite strong evidence from which the jury may infer that the assignee consents to share in the business as a partner. Still more if the assignee himself had previously been a half owner of the business.
It is not necessary to decide whether or not the learned justice should have directed a verdict for the plaintiff. There was certainly evidence to go to the jury on the question of partnership.
The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event
Landon, J., concurs.