Opinion ID: 1183168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Right to Share in Control

Text: 8. Joint control as well as an agreement to share the profits and losses is generally essential to a joint adventure or partnership. 30 Am Jur, Joint Adventure, §§ 10, 12, p. 682; Portland Trust & Savings Bank v. Lincoln Realty Co., 180 Or 96, 170 P2d 568; Drake Lumber Co. v. Paget Mortgage Co., 203 Or 66, 274 P2d 804. Its importance may be greatest in situations where there is an agreement to share profits without any agreement to share losses. In such cases the right to direct and control the affairs of the venture can often distinguish those who have a proprietary interest in the profits from those whose interest is limited, such as employees, lenders, or independent contractors. The existence of joint control in a particular relationship must be distinguished from the right of joint control. If a party has the right of joint control in the first instance, he can delegate it or surrender it in varying degrees to another party in the relationship. Patently, the right must exist before it can be delegated or surrendered. It follows then if from the inception of the relationship there is no right of management, there is none to delegate. This factor, although not controlling, mitigates against the existence of a partnership. In this case we are faced with a situation where there is no express agreement, and we must look to the objective conduct of the parties to determine where the right of control reposed. The record, when viewed as a whole, reveals the Killingers exerted the predominant influence in the conduct of the corn picking operation. They purchased the corn picking machine, hired the plaintiff and paid his wages, kept the books and accounts of the operation, entered into agreements with the farmers to harvest their corn, collected the charges for corn picking and hauling, deposited the receipts in the George Killinger & Sons business account, paid Wallace when he requested, and as testified by Ralph Killinger, he and his brother were in charge of the operation. There is scant indication that Wallace exerted any control in the enterprise. He did not enter into agreements with the farmers to harvest their corn. He responded thus to a question posed by plaintiff's counsel: Q Did you at any time during the year 1960 go out and contact any farmers in your area and make arrangements to pick their corn with Mr. Killinger's picker and your truck and his truck? A I wouldn't go as far as to say I made arrangements. I might have asked a couple of farmers if Mr. Killinger could pick their corn, because if he could pick their fields I make that much more with my truck. Q Did you quote them a price? A No, it ain't up to me to quote a price. From the testimony of the plaintiff, we see that Wallace had only a modicum of control over plaintiff. On redirect and recross examinations the plaintiff swore: Q During this operation, when you were working on this corn picker, did you ever have occasion to receive instructions on what to do from the defendant Wallace? A Well, any time when he was working if he seen something is wrong he would naturally would point to wherever it was, whenever he was driving along side the machine. Q Where he could see, and if he saw something was wrong and indicated he wanted something done, did you do it? A Yes. Q Did you take any reasonable order he gave on that job? A Certainly. And on recross examination: Q Just exactly what kind of instructions you claim he gave specifically? A Just like the night we finished loading up, they were trying to cram everything they could into the truck and he says, `get up and shove it down in the corners,' which we did and he got on a bigger load. These portions of the plaintiff's testimony indicate that Wallace, far from manifesting the attitude of an employer, acted like any cooperative fellow worker in pointing out to plaintiff when and where the machine was clogged. Wallace's instruction to get up and shove it down in the corners bespeaks more of a request for aid in getting a bigger load than an order from an employer. He was paid on the basis of weight and the more weight per load the more profit could be derived from a single trip. These excerpts quoted from the record are the only evidence  if such they are  that Wallace shared or had a right to share in control of the corn picking operation. They are not evidence that defendant Wallace had a right to share in the management of the enterprise as a joint adventurer. 9. In summary we see that in order to create a joint adventure it is not enough that the parties act in concert to achieve some economic objective. The ultimate inquiry is whether the parties manifested by their conduct a desire to commingle their profits, control, and risks in achieving the objective. The case at bar does not, in our opinion, reveal such an amalgam of funds, of property, of skills, of risks, of control or of interest as would create a joint adventure. The minds of reasonable men would coalesce, we believe, in this view. The judgment of the trial court granting the motion for involuntary nonsuit is affirmed.