Cirkel v. Croswell

• Decision Date: 03 January 1887
• Parties: JOHN W. CIRKEL and others <I>vs.</I> H. J. G. CROSWELL, impleaded, etc.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 323

36 Minn. 323

JOHN W. CIRKEL and others vs. H. J. G. CROSWELL, impleaded, etc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 3, 1887.

Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county against defendants Croswell and Charles Ellis, William Stevens and I. P. Tidd, to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to them as partners under the name of the Minneapolis Barrel Company. Defendants Stevens and Croswell each answered separately, denying the partnership. At the trial before Koon, J., and a jury, the plaintiff had a verdict. The defendant Croswell appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

G. W. M. Pittman, for appellant.

Geo. E. Sutherland, for respondent.

BERRY, J.

The main question on this appeal is whether there is evidence reasonably tending to show that Croswell was, or that he held himself out to be, a partner of Stevens. We are by no means prepared to say that the facts testified to do not raise a reasonable inference of partnership inter se; but, however this may be, clearly there is testimony fairly tending to show that Stevens and Croswell held themselves out to be partners so as to be liable as such to third persons. Such holding out may be by words spoken or written, or by conduct leading to the belief that one is a partner. This is but an application of one of the most useful and important doctrines of the law, viz., that of estoppel. Mollwo v. Court of Wards, L. R. 4 P. C. 419, 435; Pol. Partn. 22, 23.

Upon the trial many objections were interposed to the reception of evidence, which were not followed up by exceptions, and which we have therefore no occasion to consider. This disposes of the first, second, and a considerable portion of the third assignments of error.

In tracing the history of Croswell's connection with the business of what is called the "Minneapolis Barrel Company," evidence as to the steps taken to form a corporation by that name, and of his participation therein, was proper to some extent, although the corporation did not go into operation, and the business of the so-called "Minneapolis Barrel Company" was not in fact its business. More evidence was received on this subject than was of any use, but some of it was not excepted to; and especially in view of the very full and explicit charge of the court, to which no exception was taken, we cannot perceive how any harm could have resulted to the defendant from its admission.

Evidence in the case tended to show, by admissions and otherwise, that Stevens and Croswell, with other parties, got up a scheme for a corporation for the manufacture of barrels, under the name of the "Minneapolis Barrel Company;" that, the scheme being abandoned after articles of incorporation had been executed, the business of barrel making was carried on by...