Grau v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 14 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 20546,20546 |
| Citation | 156 Colo. 111,397 P.2d 488 |
| Parties | Paul GRAU, Plaintiff in Error, v. Marie MITCHELL, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Hackethal & McNeill, Lakewood, for plaintiff in error.
Barnard & Barnard, J. David Penwell, Granby, for defendant in error.
We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where plaintiff in error was plaintiff and defendant in error was defendant.
Plaintiff filed suit for alternative forms or relief. In his first claim for relief he alleged a copartnership with the defendant in the operation of a business in Parshall, Colorado. He sought dissolution of the partnership, appointment of a receiver, an accounting of the partnership assets, liabilities and profits, and distribution to the partners according to their respective rights and interests.
In his second claim for relief plaintiff alleged that he had performed work at the instance and request of the defendant in and around the property and in connection with the business, and that the reasonable value of his services was the sum of $20,000.00 for the four and a half year period involved.
Trial was to the court which entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant. It held that the evidence failed to support either claim.
The assignments of error are that the court erred in finding that no partnership existed, and, further, that the court erred in failing to render complete relief between the parties. The case hinges entirely on questions of fact; and the court having resolved the matter with full support in the record, we will not disturb the findings on review.
No good purpose would be served in detailing the complete history of plaintiff's work in and around defendant's business establishment for the period involved. A reading of the record fails to disclose any of the elements of a partnership between the parties.
The real estate was owned by defendant, and there is nothing in the record to establish plaintiff's interest in the real property and improvements thereon. As to the operation of the business, the defendant kept the books, maintained the bank account in her name, paid all the bills, and compensated plaintiff either in cash or 'in kind' for all the work that he did. No partnership returns were filed with either the federal or state government. Plaintiff's remuneration had no relationship with the business making or losing money. He was not able to establish any agreement for a share of the profits, and there was nothing to make him liable for any of the debts.
At one time in the relationship there was some talk of a partnership, and pursuant thereto, an agreement drawn up which plaintiff refused to consummate because as he said, 'he wasn't going to assume any part of the indebtedness; also, he wanted a half interest in the entire real estate.' This evidence in itself would be sufficient to defeat the claim of a partnership....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re S & D Foods, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 89 B 06041 J
...skill, effects or labor into a business, and to share the profit and losses. No express agreement is necessary. Grau v. Mitchell, 156 Colo. 111, 397 P.2d 488, 489 (1964). A partnership may be formed by the conduct of the parties. Stratman v. Dietrich, 765 P.2d 603, 605 (Colo.Ct.App.1988), r......
-
Hooper v. Yoder
...of two or more persons to carry on, as coowners, a business for profit." § 7-60-106(1), 3A C.R.S. (1986). See Grau v. Mitchell, 156 Colo. 111, 397 P.2d 488 (1964); Thompson v. McCormick, 149 Colo. 465, 370 P.2d 442 (1962); Roberts v. Roberts, 113 Colo. 128, 155 P.2d 155 (1945). The trial co......
-
Walshe v. Zabors
...and (2) to divide the profits and bear the losses in certain proportions. See Mann , 287 P.2d at 964 ; Grau v. Mitchell , 156 Colo. 111, 397 P.2d 488, 489 (Colo.1964) (en banc) (citing Kent v. Cobb , 24 Colo.App. 264, 133 P. 424, 426 (1913) ).Here, the Plaintiff alleges that he “diverted hi......
-
Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson
...proceedings. See Yoder v. Hooper, 695 P.2d 1182, 1187 (Colo.App.1984), aff'd, 737 P.2d 852 (Colo.1987); see also Grau v. Mitchell, 156 Colo. 111, 114, 397 P.2d 488, 489 (1964) (defining partnership as a "contract, express or implied, between two or more persons . . . to place their money, e......