Case Name: Sheehan v. Fleetham et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-11-26
Citations: 12 N.Y.S. 158
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sheehan v. Fleetham et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 12
Pages: 158–162

Head Matter:
Sheehan v. Fleetham et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
November 26,1890.)
Partnership—What Constitutes—Evidence.
In an action against two as partners for goods sold, and delivered, evidence that the person in whose name the business was conducted executed a bill of sale of his half interest in the stock to the other defendant, reciting in the instrument that he was only half owner, that this other defendant admitted to two witnesses that he had previously been a half owner, and that after the bill of sale he was whole owner, and that the two were brothers-in-law, and were partners in another business, is sufficient to carry the question of partnership to the jury. Matham, J., dissents.
Appeal from circuit court, St. Lawrence county.
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 co-partnership 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, taking Hutchins’ note for the same, and soon thereafter the defendant Fleetham gave his check to take up the note. The case < ces 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 Fleet-ham 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 bis 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 Hutchins, wife of defendant Hutch-ins, 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 his 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, Fleet-ham 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 appeals.
Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Mayham, JJ.
Nelson L. Robinson, for appellant. George O, Sawyer, for respondent.

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.
This is an action for goods sold and delivered. The learned trial justice directed a verdict for defendants, 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 Fleet-ham, 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 "off 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 amounts "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 & Fleetham. In reliance on that information they made the subsequent sales. Their account was still kept in the name of Hutchins. About April 16,1888, 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 was not liable, because he had not ordered Hutchins to buy these particular goods, and had not ordered them himself. The witness says that Fleet-ham told him distinctly that he was a partner from June 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 harmonizes, inasmuch as Hutchins calls himself the "half owner," and speaks of Fleetham'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 27th, 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.