Brown v. Jaquette

• Decision Date: 03 May 1880
• Parties: Brown et al. <I>versus</I> Jaquette.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

94 Pa. 113

Brown et al. versus Jaquette.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 22, 1880.

May 3, 1880.

March 22d 1880.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware county: Of January Term 1879, No. 57.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. B. Thayer, for plaintiffs in error.—The plaintiffs contend that as to this joint property, they and Samuel P. Jaquette were partners, and that his interest therein was only such balance which might be found due to him upon a settlement of the partnership accounts; that the debt of $555.39, found by the arbitration, was the balance due by him to the plaintiffs in error, and being for their share of the products of the joint property which he had sold, and not paid over, they were entitled to a credit for that amount on any such settlement. The case presents every essential element of a partnership. There was a joint contribution of capital, a division of profit and a provision for an account.

If this were an ordinary lease upon shares of the crop, where the sole contribution by the landlord to the joint enterprise was the use of land, it might well be doubted whether that would constitute a partnership inter se, but there is in this case a joint partnership of the cattle, poultry, hogs, &c., and it is the equivalent of this very property which is here for distribution. "A partnership," says Pothier, in his treatise, page *836, "may be contracted in particular things, or even in one thing, as when two neighbors agree to purchase a cow at common expense in order to feed, take care of her in common and share the profits. See, also, Williams v. Lawrence, 53 Barb. 320; Nicoll v. Mumford, 4 Johns Ch. R. 522; Musier v. Trumpbour, 5 Wend. 274. This agreement of March 16th, irrespective of the question of partnership, operated as a prior equitable assignment to the plaintiff in error of Samuel P. Jaquette's interest to the extent of his indebtedness to them.

E. H. Hall, for defendant in error.—The agreement was certainly a lease. There was a term certain, a fixed rent; and if Brown intended to divest himself of the possession, he would not reserve to himself the privilege of keeping one horse. The landlord could have distrained. The owner of the land could not be held under this agreement for any debts Jaquette might contract.

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court May 3d 1880.

The agreement between Joseph Johnson Brown and Samuel P. Jaquette, of October 20th 1864, is a lease of a farm upon the shares. See Steel v. Frick, 6 P. F. Smith 172. Jaquette agreed to farm the land for Brown, for which he was to have one-half the proceeds; each party furnishing one-half the seed, stock, poultry, hogs, &c. The agreement was for the term of one year, commencing on the first day of April, the usual time for letting farms in Pennsylvania. While it lacks some of the formality of a lease, it contains all the essential requisites of such an instrument. The reservation of one-half the products of the farm is sufficiently certain because it may be reduced to a certainty. Thus it was held in Fry v. Jones, 2 Rawle 11, that the lease of a mill for "one-third of the toll which the mill grinds," was a good reservation of rent, and could be distrained for. See also Jones v. Gundrim, 3 W. & S. 531.

It was urged, however, that the agreement...