Beard v. Rowland

Supreme Court of Kansas

Beard v. Rowland

81 P. 188, 71 Kan. 873, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 283

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 10, 1905

DocketNo. 14,206

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 81 P. 188 (Beard v. Rowland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beard v. Rowland, 81 P. 188, 71 Kan. 873, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 283 (kan 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The judgment in this case depends upon the interpretation to be given to a written agreement. The only argument in favor of the position that the agreement created a partnership is the fact that the earnings of a certain business were to be applied to the purchase of property,- which, when ultimately acquired by two of the parties, was to be divided by them with the third. It is not true, however, that profit-sharing is the unfailing test of the existence of a. partnership relation. While it may be one of the tests, it may be controlled by other considerations. (Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209.) A careful scrutiny of all the terms of this writing, in the light of the circumstances and surroundings of the parties when it was made, leads to the conclusion that the division of property contemplated was intended to be a remuneration for services in addition to the salary agreed upon.

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The judgment in this case depends upon the interpretation to be given to a written agreement. The only argument in favor of the position that the agreement created a partnership is the fact that the earnings of a certain business were to be applied to the purchase of property,- which, when ultimately acquired by two of the parties, was to be divided by them with the third. It is not true, however, that profit-sharing is the unfailing test of the existence of a. partnership relation. While it may be one of the tests, it may be controlled by other considerations. (Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209.) A careful scrutiny of all the terms of this writing, in the light of the circumstances and surroundings of the parties when it was made, leads to the conclusion that the division of property contemplated was intended to be a remuneration for services in addition to the salary agreed upon.

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company v. United States of America for the Use of H. C. Jones, Doing Business as H. C. Jones Construction Company, Burden Ivy Barfield, Bourdon Ray Barfield, and Oliver Eakle Barfield, as Co-Partners Doing Business as Barfield Construction Company v. United States of America for the Use of H. C. Jones, Doing Business as H. C. Jones Construction Company

238 F.2d 917 (Tenth Circuit, 1957)

St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. United States ex rel. Jones

238 F.2d 917 (Tenth Circuit, 1956)

Shoemake v. Davis

73 P.2d 1043 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1937)

Stalker v. DeWitt

51 P.2d 1012 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1935)

Moore v. Thompson

184 P. 980 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1919)

Sutton v. Schaff

178 P. 418 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1919)

Wade v. Hornaday

140 P. 870 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1914)

Simmons v. Shaft

138 P. 614 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 P. 188, 71 Kan. 873, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-v-rowland-kan-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack