Anderson v. Jett, &C.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1889
• Citation: 89 Ky. 375
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Parties: Anderson v. Jett, &c.

89 Ky. 375

Anderson v. Jett, &c.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 12, 1889.

APPEAL FROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT.

MASTERSON & GAUNT FOR APPELLANT.

THOMAS J. McELRATH AND J. A. DONALDSON FOR APPELLEES.

JUDGE BENNETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

The steamboats Blue Wing and Hornet were, prior to the fifteenth day of September, 1885, rivals in the freight and passenger trade on the Kentucky river; rather they were rivals as public carriers on said river. On the fifteenth day of September, 1885, the appellant, George W. Anderson, as the sole owner of the Blue Wing, and Silas P. Douthit, on behalf of the appellees and himself, as the controlling and managing owner of the Hornet, entered into a written agreement, by which it was agreed that, in order to prevent the rivalry that then existed between said boats in said carrying business, and the consequent reduction of freights and passenger charges below a fair compensation, the said boats should thereafter share in the net profits earned by each in the proportion of sixty-two and a half per cent. to the steamboat Hornet and thirty-seven and a half per cent. to the steamboat Blue Wing; that each boat should bear its own running and other expenses, and in case the owner or owners of either boat should sell the same, such owner or owners should replace the same with another boat just as good, to be run and the net profits divided as before; or, if the owner or owners of either boat should sell it with a view of going out of the trade, notice thereof should be given to the owner or owners of the other boat; and the owner or owners so selling should not come into the trade again, either directly or indirectly, within one year thereafter; that the steamboat Hornet was sold by said Douthit with the view of going out of the trade; that he gave proper notice of that fact; that the appellant, by reason of said sale and notice, purchased the steamboat Kerr to take the place of the steamboat Hornet; that with the Kerr and Blue Wing the appellant was doing a thriving and profitable business, which was interrupted and destroyed by said Douthit, contrary to the agreement, bringing the Hornet into the trade again as a competitor for freight and passengers, which competition had the effect to destroy the appellant's profitable business, by which he was damaged, &c. The case is here on appeal from a judgment of the circuit court sustaining a demurrer to the appellant's petition and amended petition.

It is to be observed that the respective owners of these boats entered into no partnership in business; the property rights and responsibilities of the owner or owners of each boat remained as before the agreement was entered into; neither assumed any duty or...