Weiland v. Sell

Supreme Court of Kansas

Weiland v. Sell

109 P. 771, 83 Kan. 229, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 505

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 9, 1910

DocketNo. 16,620

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 109 P. 771 (Weiland v. Sell) 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

Weiland v. Sell, 109 P. 771, 83 Kan. 229, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 505 (kan 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. There was no defect of parties. The defendant relies upon Railway Co. v. Hucklebridge, 62 Kan. 506, where it was held that the plaintiff could not recover in the action because it appeared that the claim sued upon belonged to a partnership. The controlling fact in that case was the agreement between the plaintiff and the witness to share the profits and the losses, which it was held constituted them partners. In this case the evidence clearly shows that there was no partnership, but merely an arrangement for a division of the net commission on one class of sales, in lieu of office rent and advertising. The case falls within the principle declared in Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209, that a sharing of the profits is not always conclusive evidence of a partnership. That circumstance here is overborne by other controlling facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. There was no defect of parties. The defendant relies upon Railway Co. v. Hucklebridge, 62 Kan. 506, where it was held that the plaintiff could not recover in the action because it appeared that the claim sued upon belonged to a partnership. The controlling fact in that case was the agreement between the plaintiff and the witness to share the profits and the losses, which it was held constituted them partners. In this case the evidence clearly shows that there was no partnership, but merely an arrangement for a division of the net commission on one class of sales, in lieu of office rent and advertising. The case falls within the principle declared in Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209, that a sharing of the profits is not always conclusive evidence of a partnership. That circumstance here is overborne by other controlling facts.

The judgment 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)

United States v. Wholesale Oil Co.

154 F.2d 745 (Tenth Circuit, 1946)

Sutton v. Schaff

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

Wade v. Hornaday

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 P. 771, 83 Kan. 229, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiland-v-sell-kan-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack