Cedarberg v. Guernsey
| Decision Date | 02 September 1899 |
| Parties | OSCAR CEDARBERG, Plaintiff and respondent, v. O.E. GUERNSEY et al., Defendant and appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from County Court, Minnehaha County, SD
Reversed
Robertson & Dougherty
Attorneys for appellant.
G. R. Krause
Attorneys for respondent.
Opinion filed September 2, 1899
This was an action by the plaintiff to recover of the defendants, as co-partners, a balance due him for services and labor performed upon a farm belonging to the defendant O. E. Guernsey, from October 1, 1895, to October 1, 1896. The defendant Swan Person made no defense to the action, but the defendant Guernsey appeared and answered. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant Guernsey appeals.
The defendant, In his answer, denied that he and Swan Person were at any of the times mentioned in the complaint copartners; and he alleged that on the 1st of October, 1894, he entered into a written contract with said defendant Person, in and by the terms of which agreement said Person was to carry on and conduct a certain farm owned by him (said Guernsey,) situated in Minnehaha county, for a period of five years from and after the date thereof. This agreement was set out in the answer in full, On the trial the learned county court charged the jury, in effect, that under and by virtue of this agreement the defendants were partners, and that Guernsey was liable with his co-defendant, Person, for the value of the plaintiff’s services, unless the jury should find that the contract was between Pelson and the plaintiff alone. The jury, having found a verdict for the plaintiff, negatived this fact,—that the contract was between Person and the plaintiff alone, This instruction was excepted to, and hence it becomes necessary to examine the contract, and ascertain if it did in fact create a partnership between the defendants. The contract is too lengthy to be set out in full in this opinion, It follows quite closely the usual farm-cropping contracts, but contains some provisions not usually found in this class of contracts. Its provisions may be summarized as follows: Guernsey, who was the owner of a farm of 320 acres, entered into a contract with his co-defendant, Person, to carry on the same for a period of five years. Among the important provisions of this contract on the part of Person is the following: “And party of the second part [Person] agrees to furnish at his own cost and expense all proper and convenient tools, teams, utensils, farming implements, and machinery to carry on and conduct and cultivate said farm during said season, and to furnish and provide all proper assistance and hired help in and about the cultivation and management of said farm, and to farm and cultivate the said lands to the best advantage, and according to his best skill and judgment.” Person also agreed to pay one-half the taxes. It was further provided in said contract that the title and possession of all hay, grain, crops and produce, horses, cattle, hogs and other stock now or hereafter to be placed upon said premises, except the horses owned and belonging to the party of the second part, should be and remain in the party of the first part until the same should be sold, and the proceeds divided as thereinafter mentioned. It was further provided in said contract that Guernsey, the party of the first part, might terminate the contract at any time, upon 30 days notice prior to the first of October of any year of his intention to so terminate the same. It was further provided in said contract that the stock furnished by the said Guernsey should be appraised, and at the end of the term of...
To continue reading
Request your trial