Gatewood v. Bolton

• Decision Date: 31 March 1871
• Parties: WILLIAM L. GATEWOOD, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILLIAM BOLTON, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

48 Mo. 78

WILLIAM L. GATEWOOD, Plaintiff in Error,

v.WILLIAM BOLTON, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1871.

Error to Sixth District Court.

Reese, Allen & Reese, for plaintiff in error.

Henderson & Dyer, for defendant in error.CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The issue in this cause tried in the Circuit Court was whether, in the month of February or March, 1862, the plaintiff and defendant “entered into a copartnership for the purpose of bidding for and carrying the mails of the United States, according to the laws of Congress and the regulations of the Post Office Department.” This is averred in the petition and denied by the answer. But it is neither averred nor proved that the parties ever, in fact, engaged in the business of carrying the mails; and the plaintiff's evidence negatives the allegation that a partnership was formed or agreed on between him and the defendant for that purpose. The alleged object and purpose of the supposed partnership is thoroughly disproved by the plaintiff himself. It appears from his testimony that a partnership was agreed on between him and the defendant, not for the purpose of carrying the mails, but for the purpose of dealing in mail contracts, which is quite another thing. He testifies that he and the defendant made an arrangement to bid for contracts together, with a view to sub-letting them to other parties, so as to make a profit by the transaction. He says “all the (mail) routes were to be sub-let to other parties, and the profit would be the difference between our bids and the prices at which we were to let them to other parties.” The anticipated profits of the business, therefore, were not looked for as the result of the execution of mail contracts, but from sub-letting them--a sort of speculation.

Whether the parties became partners in the speculation is the point contested. The plaintiff testifies that they did, and the defendant denies it; and they were the only persons having any actual knowledge of the matter. The arrangement, whatever it was, was oral, private, and known only to themselves. Nothing was paid by the plaintiff, and nothing was reduced to writing. It was known to the plaintiff that prior to July, 1862, the defendant recognized none of the partnership rights now claimed by him. He nevertheless allowed the whole matter to sleep for two years and more, and until the defendant had left the State, when this suit was commenced by attachment. In this state...