Opinion ID: 2112466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of Hamilton and Peter Glenn

Text: Plaintiff claims that the court erred in denying plaintiff recovery against defendants Hamilton and Peter Glenn on the theory that Hamilton and Peter Glenn were partners or joint venturers in the Stowe shop. Under the circumstances of this case, whether Hamilton or Peter Glenn are alleged to be partners or joint venturers makes no difference. See Mislosky v. Wilhelm, 130 Vt. 63, 68-69, 286 A.2d 267, 271 (1971). The court concluded that the partnership consisted of plaintiff and defendants McLeod, and it found facts sufficient to support this conclusion, but which would not have supported a conclusion that Hamilton or Peter Glenn were partners. We will infer from any fact found such other fact that is both reasonably inferable from the finding, and necessary to support the judgment. Barre City Hospital v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 117 Vt. 5, 7, 83 A.2d 600, 603 (1951). In this case, it is reasonable to infer from the finding that the partnership consisted of plaintiff and the McLeods the negative finding that it did not consist of Hamilton or Peter Glenn. In light of the evidence that neither of these two defendants intended to contribute to the equity of the business, or to share in the fortunes of the shop, we cannot say that this finding was clearly erroneous. See 11 V.S.A. § 1162. Furthermore, were we to denominate the business a joint venture, the result is no different: competent evidence supports the conclusion that the Stowe shop was plaintiff's and the McLeods' enterprise, not Hamilton's or Peter Glenn's. The claim that Hamilton or Peter Glenn should be liable for debts of the Stowe business as promoters of Fashion Sports, Inc. is not legally tenable. A promoter is liable on a contract he makes for the benefit of a proposed corporation, absent an agreement to the contrary. Herbert v. Boardman, 134 Vt. 78, 86, 349 A.2d 710, 714 (1975). But where, as here, the alleged promoters have not participated in making contracts for the benefit of the proposed corporation, they are not liable. Neither Hamilton nor Peter Glenn signed either note with the Union Bank. As for the inventory contracts, these were made between Peter Glenn as seller and the Stowe shop as buyer. To find the seller liable as a promoter on debts to itself would be absurd. Nor is Hamilton liable as a promoter on these contracts, because there is no evidence that he was the negotiating party on behalf of Fashion Sports for these transactions. The court's finding that neither Hamilton nor Peter Glenn are liable on the debts of the Stowe shop will be affirmed.