Opinion ID: 1626364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the existence of a partnership

Text: In the early case of Culley v. Edwards, 44 Ark. 423, this Court stated the rule that:    the test of a partnership between the parties themselves has always been their actual intent, and the rule is equally well settled in this jurisdiction that the existence of a partnership need be proved only by a preponderance of the evidence. See Wilson v. Todhunter, 137 Ark. 80, 207 S.W. 221; Williams v. Walker, 148 Ark. 49, 229 S.W. 28; May v. Sharp, 193 Ark. 340, 99 S.W.2d 252. With these rules in mind, we examine the record on trial de novo to determine whether the evidence meets the tests set forth above. There we find that appellee testified on two occasions that it was agreed between William Brandenburg, Sr., and Luella Brandenburg and himself that they would enter into a general partnership with respect to running the Brandenburg Cleaners and on the basis of this agreement appellee advanced certain moneys to be used for partnership purposes and that he worked at various times throughout the partnership in the business and managed the same and did other work in connection therewith and received no salary whatsoever, but a slight drawing account and he lived with his parents, the other two partners, at various times without paying room and board. The question of the partnership agreement was corroborated by two disinterested witnesses. Edward Bibb testified that Brandenburg, Sr., and his wife advised the appellee that if he would put his money that he then had into the business that they would buy some new equipment and call it the Brandenburg Cleaners and all three would be partners. Clare Elizabeth Shannon testified that Brandenburg, Sr. and his wife told her that they, along with the appellee, were the three partners and she had heard them state this quite a number of times and that they told her that they were partners three ways. It is evident from the record that both of the foregoing named witnesses were in a position to know what the agreement was because of the fact that Edward Bibb stated that he was Mrs. Brandenburg's nephew; had worked in the cleaners taking care of the business for a short period of time and had helped install some of the new equipment and machinery and that he visited in the Brandenburg home quite often and went on fishing trips with them and was more or less in constant contact with all three parties. Clare Shannon resided at 131 Central Avenue and the business establishment was located at 125 Central Avenue and she stated that she had lived with Brandenburg, Sr. and his wife for approximately nine months and she also had helped manage the business at one time and was in more or less constant contact with all three parties, and, therefore, was in a position to know the business relationship. In addition to the evidence of appellee and these two disinterested witnesses, the record further reveals that William Brandenburg, Sr., himself, admitted that there was an agreement made between the parties as to a partnership business under which appellee was to receive one-third of the net profits. See Ark.Stats. § 65-107(4). Since the Chancellor had an opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses on the stand, great weight should be accorded his finding of fact. England v. Scott, 205 Ark. 47, 166 S.W.2d 1014; May v. Alsobrook, 221 Ark. 293, 253 S.W.2d 29. It follows, therefore, from what has been said and from other evidence brought forth in the voluminous record before us that we cannot say the Chancellor erred in finding that appellee had established by a preponderance of the evidence that it was the actual intent of the parties to establish a partnership.