Anagnos v. Raptis

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Anagnos v. Raptis

99 N.E.2d 164, 327 Mass. 442

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 31, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 N.E.2d 164 (Anagnos v. Raptis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anagnos v. Raptis, 99 N.E.2d 164, 327 Mass. 442 (Mass. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Lummus, J.

In his bill the plaintiff alleges that the parties were partners in a restaurant in Cambridge called the Famous Cafeteria, and prays for an accounting and other incidental relief. In the Superior Court a final decree was entered, dismissing the bill with costs. The plaintiff appealed. The evidence is reported, and the judge found that the plaintiff was not a partner but merely an employee until the year 1935, when he took over the cafeteria or food end of the business, leaving the defendant the owner of the bar.

The defendant acquired the restaurant from one Loukas in 1930. He took the leases of the premises in his own name, and also the licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages. The certificate required by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 110, § 5, stated that the defendant was the sole proprietor. The plaintiff would have been criminally liable under that section if he had been a partner. The defendant carried the bank ac *443 count in his own name, and he alone signed all notes for borrowed money. The insurance policies were in his name alone.

The plaintiff introduced an unsigned copy of a purported agreement of equal partnership between the parties, dated December 2, 1930. A lawyer testified that he drew that agreement, and that it was executed by the parties on January 7, 1931. There was also evidence of sharing of profits, and of admissions made by the defendant that a partnership existed. But such evidence was contradicted by the defendant. In his testimony, the defendant denied the existence of any partnership. No partnership income tax returns were ever filed. The plaintiff’s contention that there was a partnership is supported by no written instrument.

In our opinion, the finding of the judge against the plaintiff was not plainly wrong, and must stand. McMurtrie v. Guiler, 183 Mass. 451, 453. Wheelock v. Zevitas, 229 Mass. 167, 170. Rosenblum v. Springfield Produce Brokerage Co. 243 Mass. 111, 119. Bartels v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 326 Mass. 1, 5.

Decree affirmed with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lummus, J.

In his bill the plaintiff alleges that the parties were partners in a restaurant in Cambridge called the Famous Cafeteria, and prays for an accounting and other incidental relief. In the Superior Court a final decree was entered, dismissing the bill with costs. The plaintiff appealed. The evidence is reported, and the judge found that the plaintiff was not a partner but merely an employee until the year 1935, when he took over the cafeteria or food end of the business, leaving the defendant the owner of the bar.

The defendant acquired the restaurant from one Loukas in 1930. He took the leases of the premises in his own name, and also the licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages. The certificate required by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 110, § 5, stated that the defendant was the sole proprietor. The plaintiff would have been criminally liable under that section if he had been a partner. The defendant carried the bank ac *443 count in his own name, and he alone signed all notes for borrowed money. The insurance policies were in his name alone.

The plaintiff introduced an unsigned copy of a purported agreement of equal partnership between the parties, dated December 2, 1930. A lawyer testified that he drew that agreement, and that it was executed by the parties on January 7, 1931. There was also evidence of sharing of profits, and of admissions made by the defendant that a partnership existed. But such evidence was contradicted by the defendant. In his testimony, the defendant denied the existence of any partnership. No partnership income tax returns were ever filed. The plaintiff’s contention that there was a partnership is supported by no written instrument.

In our opinion, the finding of the judge against the plaintiff was not plainly wrong, and must stand. McMurtrie v. Guiler, 183 Mass. 451, 453. Wheelock v. Zevitas, 229 Mass. 167, 170. Rosenblum v. Springfield Produce Brokerage Co. 243 Mass. 111, 119. Bartels v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 326 Mass. 1, 5.

Decree affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 N.E.2d 164, 327 Mass. 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anagnos-v-raptis-mass-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack