Case Name: BENJAMIN BROWN vs. C. COOK and N. ROBBINS
Court: New Hampshire Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1824-05
Citations: 3 N.H. 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: BENJAMIN BROWN vs. C. COOK and N. ROBBINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 64–65

Head Matter:
BENJAMIN BROWN vs. C. COOK and N. ROBBINS.
Where two are jointly concerned in any transaction, under an agreement to share between them, the profits of the business indefinitely, they are partners in that transaction.
This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration alleged, that the defendants in consideration, that the plaintiff would deliver to them two oxen, to be driven to márket and solil, promised to account and páy over to the plaintiff the proceeds of the sale.
The cause was tried here, upon the general issue, at October term, 1823 ; when it was admitted by the parties, that Cook received the oxen of the plaintiff, to drive to market and sell; that they were delivered by Cook to Robbins, who drove them to a market and sold them, and received the money.
On the part of the plaintiff, much evidence was offered to the jury, to prove, that the defendants had been jointly engaged in collecting and driving cattle to market for hire, and that they shared the profits of the business between them.
But the defendants endeavored to prove, that they were not jointly concerned in the business, and that Cook only acted as the agent of Robbins, in collecting cattle to be driven to market.
The court instructed the jury, that, if they believed the defendants were jointly concerned in receiving and driving the plaintiff’s oxen to market, and were to share between them the profits, whatever they might he, the defendants must he considered as partners in the transaction, and the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict ; l>ut if Cook acted merely as the agent of Robbins, the defendants must have a verdict
The jury found for the plaintiff ; and the defendants moved for a new trial, on the ground that the jury had been misdi rected.
J. Parker, for the plaintiff.
Alexander, and J. C, Chamberlain, for defendants.

Opinion:
By the court.
Nothing can be clearer, than that, where two men are jointly concerned in any transaction, under an agreement to share between them the profits of the business indefinitely, they must be considered as partners in the transaction. 16 John. 34.-2 H. Bl. 235.-2 W. Bl. 998—1 H. Bl. 43, 45, 48.—Doug. 373.—15 John. 422.
And, as the law was so stated to the jury, there must be
Judgment on the verdict.