Barnes v. Collins
| Citation | 16 Haw. 340 |
| Parties | ALBERT BARNES v. CHARLES R. COLLINS. |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1904 |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAPPEAL FROM DE BOLT, CIRCUIT JUDGE, FIRST CIRCUIT.
Syllabus by the Court
A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to share, as co-owners or principals, the profits of a business.
While the question of whether a partnership is created or not is one of intention, by which however is meant, not what the parties call the relation into which they enter or what they understand its result will be, but what its legal effect is, and while no single fact may be conclusive proof of a partnership in all cases,-a strong case is made out presumptively by an agreement of two persons that they are “jointly and equally interested” in two leaseholds held in their respective names, that “any profits that may accrue” from the leaseholds shall be “equally divided between them, and that they shall “share equally any and all expenses that may arise in the handling” of the leaseholds, and when the circumstances leading up to the agreement and the subsequent acts of the parties support rather than refute the theory of a partnership.
W. A. Whiting and C. F. Clemons for plaintiff.
J. J. Dunne and W. T. Rawlins for defendant.
This is a bill in equity for the dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting. The defence is that there was no partnership. The circuit judge found that there was a partnership and ordered an accounting. The defendant appealed.
The theory of the plaintiff, which was sustained by the circuit judge, is that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a partnership with reference to the ownership and management of two leaseholds, one of which was taken in the name of the plaintiff and the other in the name of the defendant; that the agreement between the parties was subsequently put in writing; and that this agreement together with the circumstances leading up to it and the subsequent acts of the parties all go to show a partnership. The written agreement is as follows:
“Know all Men by these Presents, that we Albert Barnes and Charles R. Collins, both of Honolulu, and of the Territory of Hawaii, are jointly and equally interested in the following pieces of property, viz.: That certain leasehold, situate on Liliha Street, and being the same premises heretofore occupied by, and which were purchased from Frank Northrup, by the said Charles R. Collins, and also that certain leasehold lately the property of E. B. Thomas known as “Kawehewehe,” and which premises situate at Waikiki, were purchased by the said Albert Barnes from the said E. B. Thomas. It is mutually agreed that the said Barnes and Collins shall share equally any and all expenses that may arise in the handling of these two aforementioned leaseholds, and that any profits that may accrue from these leaseholds shall be equally divided between the aforesaid Barnes and Collins, share and share alike. In Witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto, and to a like document, set their hands and seals, this 5th day of November, A. D. 1900.
(Sig.) A. BARNES,
“C. R. COLLINS.”
The defendant contends that the party alleging a partnership must prove it; that strict proof of a partnership is required as to parties inter se; that an agreement to form a partnership must be definite and certain; that the evidence in this case wholly fails to establish a partnership between the parties; that the fact that real property is held in the joint names of several owners or in the name of one for the benefit of all is no evidence of a partnership; that mere community of interest or joint ownership does not create a partnership; that in the present case there was not even joint ownership, or common property, or community of interest in the subject matter of the pretended partnership; that even a participation in the profiits and losses does not necessarily establish a partnership; that it is not stated in the written agreement that the parties were to be partners and there is nothing said about a firm name; that the document is not in the form of a partnership...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O.W. Ltd. Partnership, Matter of
...Yee, Ltd., supra. See also Kienitz v. Sager, 40 Haw. 1 (1953); Winkelbach v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 20 Haw. 498 (1911); Barnes v. Collins, 16 Haw. 340 (1904). Whether a joint venture exists is ordinarily a question of fact for determination by the trier of fact. Strand v. Cranney, 607 P.2d......
-
Simmons v. Samulewicz, 30527.
...the intention of the parties." Dang v. F and S Land Dev. Corp., 62 Haw. 583, 589, 618 P.2d 276, 280 (1980) (quoting Barnes v. Collins, 16 Haw. 340, 342 (1904) ); see also Winkelbach v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 20 Haw. 498, 502 (Haw.Terr.1911). Based on the evidence adduced in regard to the s......
-
Barnes v. Collins
...16 Haw. 340 ALBERT BARNES v. CHARLES R. COLLINS. Supreme Court of Territory of Hawai'i.December 19, Argued December 7, 1904. APPEAL FROM DE BOLT, CIRCUIT JUDGE, FIRST CIRCUIT. Syllabus by the Court A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to share, as co-owners or principals, the......
-
Buffandeau v. Shin
...of a business and that whether an agreement creates a partnership or not depends upon the intention of the parties." Barnes v. Collins, 16 Haw. 340, 343 (1906). Under now-existing Hawaii law, a partnership is statutorily defined as "an association . . . of two or more persons to carry on as......