Harrison, J.
January 12, 1888, the plaintiffs in the court below (defendants in error here) filed a petition in the district court of Lancaster county, in an action against William Roggenkamp and Charles Scott, partners, doing business as Scott & Roggenkamp, as defendants. The petition is short and we will give a copy of it:
“The above-named plaintiffs, a firm doing business at Lincoln, Nebraska, complain of the above-named defendants, a firm doing business at Bennett, Nebraska, for that on the 10th day of August,-1886, plaintiffs sold and delivered to William Roggenkamp certain merchandise, consisting of smoked meats and hams, in the reasonable value of $33.40, which amount said Roggenkamp agreed to pay; that the same has not been paid, nor any part thereof; that there is now due from defendants to the plaintiffs thereon the sum of $33.40 and interest.
“Second — Plaintiffs further say that the said merchandise was purchased by the said Scott in the name of William Roggenkamp, and the same was shipped and delivered by plaintiffs to said Roggenkamp.
“Third — Plaintiffs further say that the said Scott, at the time of the said purchase, was in business in Bennett, Nebraska, as partner of the said Roggenkamp and that the said merchandise, as plaintiffs verily believe, was purchased for the use and benefit of said firm, and that said firm is liable for payment of the same.
“Plaintiffs pray judgment for the sum of $33.40 and interest, and costs of suit.”
To this petition Scott did not answer. Roggenkamp, as answer for himself, filed a general denial. A trial was had to the court and a jury, and the jury rendered a verdict, which was as follows:
[542]*542“Hargreaves Bros., Plaintiffs, v. William Roggenkamp.
“We, the jury, duly impaneled and sworn in the above entitled cause, do find for the plaintiff and assess the amount of their recovery at the sum of thirty-three and dollars principal, and seven dollars interest.”
A motion for a new trial was filed, argued, and overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict against William Roggenkamp, and the case is brought here on error for our consideration.
The first assignment of error argued by plaintiff in error in his brief is that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence. We have read and considered (he whole of the testimony carefully, and are satisfied that (here was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in believing that Roggenkamp furnished the capital and Scott contributed his services and they engaged in the business of running a butcher or meat shop, the profits of such business to be shared equally. This would constitute them partners within the rule or definition announced by this court in the case of Strader v. White, 2 Neb., 348, where it was said: “If a person contract with a partnership to contribute his services to the enterprise, for which he is to be compensated by a proportion of the profits,- he becomes a member of the firm and liable for its debts, although he do not stipulate to bear any part of the losses.” In the body of the opinion written by Lake, J., we find the following statement: “It is argued, however, that there is no agreement on the part of the Whites to share in the losses which might occur, and therefore they cannot be held to-be partners. This proposition is altogether untenable. In the first place they could receive no compensation for their skill and labor except out of the net profits. If these failed, they must necessarily share in the losses, at least to the extent of the value of the skill and labor contributed by them. It has been held [543]*543that where one person advanced funds for carrying on a particular trade, and another furnished his personal services only in carrying on the trade, for which he was to receive a portion of the net profits, they were partners between themselves as well as to third persons.” We are fully of the opinion that the evidence on the question of partnership was ample and strong enough to sustain the verdict and bring it within the rule of this court, so often expressed, that “when not clearly against the weight of the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed.” The same rule will apply to the contention made by plaintiff in error in regard to the facts that the claim in suit was for “ smoked meats and hams.” There was’ sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the jury, that the smoked meats and hams were bought for sale in the business and with the knowledge of Roggenkamp, and the jury must necessarily have made such a finding as to this fact, as one of the component elements or facts of Jbeir whole verdict, as returned in the case.
The next assignment of error is that the court erred in' giving to the jury instruction No. 4, which was as follows: “ If you find from the evidence that the defendant Roggenkamp entered into an arrangement with Charles Scott, his co-defendant herein, whereby he became a partner of said Scott, in the business engaged in, and was to receive half the profits of said business, in pursuance of such agree-ment, such arrangement would make said Roggenkamp a partner of said Scott in their business, and he would be liable for debts contracted by the firm as partners in and about the carrying and management of said partnership business.” It is contended that by'this the jury were told that if they found that there was to be a division of the profits, this would constitute the defendants partners. This is not strictly correct, as it will be seen the jury were further told that they must find from the evidence that Roggenkamp and Scott had entered into an arrangement [544]*544whereby they became partners. The instruction is not very clear and does not define a partnership, and under some circumstances we think it might be misleading and prejudicial ■ but immediately following this instruction the court, in its charge to the jury, gave instruction marked “First,” as asked by defendants, as follows : “ The jury are instructed that if you find that the agreement between Scott and Roggenkamp consisted only in Mr. Roggenkamp’s furnishing three beeves to Scott for1' slaughter, and that Scott was to pay Roggenkamp the value thereof, and that Roggenkamp was to have one-half of the profits thereof, for the rent of the shop, tools, and slaughter house, that alone would not constitute a partnership or make the defendant Roggenkamp liable for the goods in controversy.” By this instruction certain of the facts in evidence in the case were grouped together and the jury informed that if they concluded that such was the agreement, it did not constitute a partnership between defendants or make Roggenkamp liable for the goods. The only other possible grouping of the facts in the case on the question of partnership would so arrange them that the copel usion to be drawn from them must be that the defendants were partners in the meat business. In view of the fact that the court gave the further instruction above quoted, although instruction No. 4 was imperfect and not as clear and explicit as it should have been, we do not think it could have misled the jury or prejudiced the rights of defendants, and we do not think its giving was sufficient ground for a new trial. “The giving of an instruction which is imperfect or erroneous is not grounds for a new trial, where it could not have prejudiced the complaining parties.” ( Converse v. Meyer, 14 Neb., 190.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Harrison, J.
January 12, 1888, the plaintiffs in the court below (defendants in error here) filed a petition in the district court of Lancaster county, in an action against William Roggenkamp and Charles Scott, partners, doing business as Scott & Roggenkamp, as defendants. The petition is short and we will give a copy of it:
“The above-named plaintiffs, a firm doing business at Lincoln, Nebraska, complain of the above-named defendants, a firm doing business at Bennett, Nebraska, for that on the 10th day of August,-1886, plaintiffs sold and delivered to William Roggenkamp certain merchandise, consisting of smoked meats and hams, in the reasonable value of $33.40, which amount said Roggenkamp agreed to pay; that the same has not been paid, nor any part thereof; that there is now due from defendants to the plaintiffs thereon the sum of $33.40 and interest.
“Second — Plaintiffs further say that the said merchandise was purchased by the said Scott in the name of William Roggenkamp, and the same was shipped and delivered by plaintiffs to said Roggenkamp.
“Third — Plaintiffs further say that the said Scott, at the time of the said purchase, was in business in Bennett, Nebraska, as partner of the said Roggenkamp and that the said merchandise, as plaintiffs verily believe, was purchased for the use and benefit of said firm, and that said firm is liable for payment of the same.
“Plaintiffs pray judgment for the sum of $33.40 and interest, and costs of suit.”
To this petition Scott did not answer. Roggenkamp, as answer for himself, filed a general denial. A trial was had to the court and a jury, and the jury rendered a verdict, which was as follows:
[542]*542“Hargreaves Bros., Plaintiffs, v. William Roggenkamp.
“We, the jury, duly impaneled and sworn in the above entitled cause, do find for the plaintiff and assess the amount of their recovery at the sum of thirty-three and dollars principal, and seven dollars interest.”
A motion for a new trial was filed, argued, and overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict against William Roggenkamp, and the case is brought here on error for our consideration.
The first assignment of error argued by plaintiff in error in his brief is that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence. We have read and considered (he whole of the testimony carefully, and are satisfied that (here was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in believing that Roggenkamp furnished the capital and Scott contributed his services and they engaged in the business of running a butcher or meat shop, the profits of such business to be shared equally. This would constitute them partners within the rule or definition announced by this court in the case of Strader v. White, 2 Neb., 348, where it was said: “If a person contract with a partnership to contribute his services to the enterprise, for which he is to be compensated by a proportion of the profits,- he becomes a member of the firm and liable for its debts, although he do not stipulate to bear any part of the losses.” In the body of the opinion written by Lake, J., we find the following statement: “It is argued, however, that there is no agreement on the part of the Whites to share in the losses which might occur, and therefore they cannot be held to-be partners. This proposition is altogether untenable. In the first place they could receive no compensation for their skill and labor except out of the net profits. If these failed, they must necessarily share in the losses, at least to the extent of the value of the skill and labor contributed by them. It has been held [543]*543that where one person advanced funds for carrying on a particular trade, and another furnished his personal services only in carrying on the trade, for which he was to receive a portion of the net profits, they were partners between themselves as well as to third persons.” We are fully of the opinion that the evidence on the question of partnership was ample and strong enough to sustain the verdict and bring it within the rule of this court, so often expressed, that “when not clearly against the weight of the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed.” The same rule will apply to the contention made by plaintiff in error in regard to the facts that the claim in suit was for “ smoked meats and hams.” There was’ sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the jury, that the smoked meats and hams were bought for sale in the business and with the knowledge of Roggenkamp, and the jury must necessarily have made such a finding as to this fact, as one of the component elements or facts of Jbeir whole verdict, as returned in the case.
The next assignment of error is that the court erred in' giving to the jury instruction No. 4, which was as follows: “ If you find from the evidence that the defendant Roggenkamp entered into an arrangement with Charles Scott, his co-defendant herein, whereby he became a partner of said Scott, in the business engaged in, and was to receive half the profits of said business, in pursuance of such agree-ment, such arrangement would make said Roggenkamp a partner of said Scott in their business, and he would be liable for debts contracted by the firm as partners in and about the carrying and management of said partnership business.” It is contended that by'this the jury were told that if they found that there was to be a division of the profits, this would constitute the defendants partners. This is not strictly correct, as it will be seen the jury were further told that they must find from the evidence that Roggenkamp and Scott had entered into an arrangement [544]*544whereby they became partners. The instruction is not very clear and does not define a partnership, and under some circumstances we think it might be misleading and prejudicial ■ but immediately following this instruction the court, in its charge to the jury, gave instruction marked “First,” as asked by defendants, as follows : “ The jury are instructed that if you find that the agreement between Scott and Roggenkamp consisted only in Mr. Roggenkamp’s furnishing three beeves to Scott for1' slaughter, and that Scott was to pay Roggenkamp the value thereof, and that Roggenkamp was to have one-half of the profits thereof, for the rent of the shop, tools, and slaughter house, that alone would not constitute a partnership or make the defendant Roggenkamp liable for the goods in controversy.” By this instruction certain of the facts in evidence in the case were grouped together and the jury informed that if they concluded that such was the agreement, it did not constitute a partnership between defendants or make Roggenkamp liable for the goods. The only other possible grouping of the facts in the case on the question of partnership would so arrange them that the copel usion to be drawn from them must be that the defendants were partners in the meat business. In view of the fact that the court gave the further instruction above quoted, although instruction No. 4 was imperfect and not as clear and explicit as it should have been, we do not think it could have misled the jury or prejudiced the rights of defendants, and we do not think its giving was sufficient ground for a new trial. “The giving of an instruction which is imperfect or erroneous is not grounds for a new trial, where it could not have prejudiced the complaining parties.” ( Converse v. Meyer, 14 Neb., 190.)
Plaintiff in error objects to the verdict, that it is, both in form and substance, against Roggenkamp alone. We have reproduced the verdict in another part of this opinion^ and by referring to the copy it will be ascertained that it was entitled “Hargreaves Bros. v. William Roggenkamp.” [545]*545That this is not such a defect in form as will affect its validity as a verdict has been decided by this court in a case very similar to this, Parrish v. McNeal, 36 Neb., 727, in which the .court says: “ The only criticism upon the verdict, urged by counsel, relates to the title of the cause. No such objection was called to the attention of the court at the time the verdict was returned into court. Had it been, the defect, if any, doubtless would have been corrected before the jury were discharged. The title of the cause was not changed by permitting the administrator to appear and defend. The verdict was returned and filed in the proper action, and the title was sufficient to identify the verdict with the case. The omission of the name of the administrator as a defendant from the title was not such a defect as to prevent the entry of a judgment on the verdict.”
The further and main objection to the verdict is its being against Roggenkamp, of defendants, alone and omitting the other defendant Scott. It must be borne in mind that this is an action on account, from all the information we can get from an examination of the record, against the individual members of the partnership, and it was competent and proper in such a case for the jury to return a verdict against one of the members of the firm, and such a verdict warranted the court in rendering judgment thereon against the party therein named. Section 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows: “Judgment may be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of several defendants;' it may determine the ultimate rights of the parties on either side, as between themselves, and it may grant to the defendant any affirmative relief to which he may be entitled. In an action against several deféndants, the court may in its discretion render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others, whenever a several judgment may be proper. The court may also dismiss the petition with costs in favor of [546]*546one or more defendants, in case of unreasonable neglect on the part of the plaintiff to serve the summons on other defendants, or to proceed in the cause against the defendant or defendants served.” (See also Nebraska R. Co. v. Lett, 8 Neb., 251; Rowland v. Shephard, 27 Neb., 494; Anderson v. Fort Worth Base Ball Ass’n, 14 S. W. Rep. [Tex.], 1016.)
There is the further thought here which has a bearing upon this branch of the case: Under the evidence, the jury, viewing it in the light of one set of facts, might well have determined that the meats were bought for Roggenkamp on his own account by Scott as his agent. The evidence to support a finding that this was the individual debt of Roggenkamp was strong and amply sufficient to sustain a verdict founded upon such a conclusion, and we are almost led to believe, from a careful perusal of the testimony, and the verdict as rendered by the jury, that this was the conclusion which they did reach; and if so, we think it would not be reversible error, under the pleadings in the case and evidence introduced. “In an action against two jointly, as partners, a recovery may be had against one alone, on proof that the debt sued for was his individual debt.. Following Maynard v. Ponder, 75 Ga., 664.” (Ledbetter v. Dean, 9 S. E. Rep. [Ga.], 720.) But if arrived at by the jury on either of the above theories of the case as presented in the evidence, — it is immaterial which, — the verdict was sustained by the testimony and there was no error in either its form or substance which calls for a reversal of the judgment. The judgment of the lower court is
Affirmed,