H. Midwood & Sons v. Executive Ass'n of Wholesale Grocers

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

H. Midwood & Sons v. Executive Ass'n of Wholesale Grocers

37 A. 946, 20 R.I. 152, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 79

DecidedJune 21, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A. 946 (H. Midwood & Sons v. Executive Ass'n of Wholesale Grocers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

H. Midwood & Sons v. Executive Ass'n of Wholesale Grocers, 37 A. 946, 20 R.I. 152, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 79 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think the nonsuit was properly granted. The testimony fails to show any community of interest between the members of the defendant association which is necessary to constitute them partners. The funds received from the manufacturers for goods ordered by the members of the association, by way of rebates, did not belong to the asso *153 ciafcion, but were sent to its treasurer for convenience of distribution, and were distributed among the members in proportion to the amount of goods which each had ordered from the manufacturer, those only receiving a rebate who had ordered goods of the kind made by the manufacturer paying the rebate. The funds so received were therefore not joint" profits. . •

Stephen O. Edwards, Seeber Edwards and Walter F. Angelí, for plaintiffs. Charles A. Wilson and Thomas A. Jenckes, for defendants.

Moreover, the testimony further shows that the plaintiff's were not members of the association, and consequently were not entitled to any part of the rebates. The letters upon which they relied, written to them by Flanders, do not rexider the defendants liable, the authority of Flaxiders to bind the association by these letters not appearing. Even if a payxnent had been made by Flanders to the plaintiffs, as is now alleged, his authority to make'it for the association is not shown ; nor does it appear that such payment was known to the association or ratified by it.

The petition for xiew trial is denied, and the case is remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to exxter judgment for the defendants for costs.

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

Per Curiam.

We think the nonsuit was properly granted. The testimony fails to show any community of interest between the members of the defendant association which is necessary to constitute them partners. The funds received from the manufacturers for goods ordered by the members of the association, by way of rebates, did not belong to the asso *153 ciafcion, but were sent to its treasurer for convenience of distribution, and were distributed among the members in proportion to the amount of goods which each had ordered from the manufacturer, those only receiving a rebate who had ordered goods of the kind made by the manufacturer paying the rebate. The funds so received were therefore not joint" profits. . •

Stephen O. Edwards, Seeber Edwards and Walter F. Angelí, for plaintiffs. Charles A. Wilson and Thomas A. Jenckes, for defendants.

Moreover, the testimony further shows that the plaintiff's were not members of the association, and consequently were not entitled to any part of the rebates. The letters upon which they relied, written to them by Flanders, do not rexider the defendants liable, the authority of Flaxiders to bind the association by these letters not appearing. Even if a payxnent had been made by Flanders to the plaintiffs, as is now alleged, his authority to make'it for the association is not shown ; nor does it appear that such payment was known to the association or ratified by it.

The petition for xiew trial is denied, and the case is remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to exxter judgment for the defendants for costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A. 946, 20 R.I. 152, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-midwood-sons-v-executive-assn-of-wholesale-grocers-ri-1897.