Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. of Phila.

California Supreme Court

Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. of Phila.

173 P. 403, 178 Cal. 302, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 471

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 24, 1918

DocketL. A. No. 4189. Department Two.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 173 P. 403 (Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. of Phila.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. of Phila., 173 P. 403, 178 Cal. 302, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 471 (Cal. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, J.

This is an action to recover upon a fire insurance policy upon a stock of goods destroyed by fire. The question raised is whether or not there was an assignment of an interest in the property by plaintiff to one Stewart, or such a change of possession as would prevent plaintiff recovering under the terms of the policy. The court found that plaintiff owned the property. The evidence is that he purchased the store and paid therefor, and installed Stewart as his agent and employee in charge thereof, permitting Stewart to conduct the business in the latter’s name as owner, under an agreement by which Stewart was to receive $125 a month and was to be given a half interest in the business as soon as the profits amounted to two thousand dollars (the estimated value of a half interest in the business). This was an agreement of employment, by which the employee was to be paid upon the basis of a stated salary and a proportion of the profits. He was not to share in the losses and his ownership in the business was contingent upon the profits amounting to enough to purchase a half interest therein. The finding of the court that Brown owned the property is supported by the evidence.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Melvin, J., and Victor B. Shaw, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

WILBUR, J.

This is an action to recover upon a fire insurance policy upon a stock of goods destroyed by fire. The question raised is whether or not there was an assignment of an interest in the property by plaintiff to one Stewart, or such a change of possession as would prevent plaintiff recovering under the terms of the policy. The court found that plaintiff owned the property. The evidence is that he purchased the store and paid therefor, and installed Stewart as his agent and employee in charge thereof, permitting Stewart to conduct the business in the latter’s name as owner, under an agreement by which Stewart was to receive $125 a month and was to be given a half interest in the business as soon as the profits amounted to two thousand dollars (the estimated value of a half interest in the business). This was an agreement of employment, by which the employee was to be paid upon the basis of a stated salary and a proportion of the profits. He was not to share in the losses and his ownership in the business was contingent upon the profits amounting to enough to purchase a half interest therein. The finding of the court that Brown owned the property is supported by the evidence.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Melvin, J., and Victor B. Shaw, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 P. 403, 178 Cal. 302, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-franklin-fire-ins-co-of-phila-cal-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack