Case Name: Taylor vs. Terme and Jauffret
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1815-05
Citations: 3 H. & J. 505
Docket Number: 
Parties: Taylor vs. Terme and Jauffret.
Judges: The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Earle,- Johnson,- and Martin, J.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 3
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
Taylor vs. Terme and Jauffret.
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Jlsmmpsit on á promissory note. The general issue was pleaded; and at the trial the plaintiff, (now Appellant,) gave in evidence the note, which was dated the 21st of December 1808, and drawn by Jaujjret, one of the defendants below; for §1950, payable Go days after date to the plaintiff, or order. It was admitted that Juitffrct was a Frenchman, carrying on trade and commerce ia the city of RulUz&ert; and that be- . ' » - 1 ing iii want of a clerk or book keeper wh'd understood the English and French languages, he applied to the other (lefendafit (Terme.) for that purpose; that Terme asked him v . J . , 1. . , S800 a year as a salary for Ins services; which Jauffret declined giving, but promised to give him the one fourth part of tfié profits arising from his' business, which Terme agreed to accept; and in pursuance of such agreement entered into the employment d Jauffret ás a book keeper. And it was also admitted, that the promissory note in question Was afterwards given by Jauffret to the plai'iitiff, for so much money advanced by him to Jauffret in the course of his said trade and dealing. The plaintiff also gave in evidence, that Terme, during the time of his being in the service of Jauffret, had no control or management Of the business of JauffreU other than as a clerk or bookkeeper, and that the business was conducted and carried on in ilie name of Jauffret alone. And he then prayed the court to direct the jury, that he was entitled to recover. But the Court, [Nicholson, Cb. J.] was of opinion, that Terme Could only be considered, from the evidence, as the hired servant of Jauffret, and refused to give the direction. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him he appealed to this court. '
If a person tte* íivt‘3 a benefit from a frade us which another is eng 'g(“d, by re* ceiYtn# a portion of the profits, he is liable as a part* saer, I bo’ he acts only in the character of an agent, and receives such profits as a con.-' peimlioik for ¿wb «¿easy*
The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Earle,- Johnson,- and Martin, J.
Pinkney and PJinder, for the Appellant;
contended, that where a person derives a benefit from the trade in which another is engaged,- by receiving a portion of profits, he is liable as a partner, although he expressly stipulates that he is not to be liable. If he takes the profits, he must bear the loss. They referred to Watson on Part. 9, 10, 13, 19, 26, 124, 169, 201. Waugh vs. Carver, 2 H. Blk. 245. Morse vs. Wilson, 4 T. R. 354. Hesketh vs. Blanchard, 4 East, 147. Ord on Usury, 47. 1 Com. on Cont. 285, 286. Grace vs. Smith, 2 W. Blk. 999.
Martin, for the Appellees,
admitted that the authorities cited establised the principle relied upon by the appellant’s counsel, but contended that those decisions, being since the revolution, were not binding on this court.

Opinion:
. JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED.