Hankey v. Becht
| Decision Date | 22 July 1878 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 212 |
| Parties | Frank Hankey and another v. John C. Becht |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The plaintiffs, Frank Hankey and Nic Horn, brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county, against the defendant for the wrongful taking and conversion of certain sheep. The defendant denied plaintiffs' title, and pleaded that the sheep were the property of one Arimond, and that he levied on and sold them by virtue of an execution directed to him as sheriff of Ramsey county, upon a judgment against Arimond and in favor of one Hardy. At the trial before Wilkin, J., the plaintiffs had a verdict; a new trial was refused, and the defendant appealed.
Order reversed, and new trial ordered.
Gilman & Clough, for appellant.
Rogers & Rogers, for respondents.
From the evidence in the case, it appears that the sheep in controversy were bought in Chicago by Hankey, with the proceeds of three car-loads of cattle, sent from St. Paul to Chicago, and there disposed of by Hankey through his agent at that place. Of the three car-loads of cattle, one belonged to Hankey alone; in one, he was interested with Horn; and the other had been purchased by Arimond, the execution debtor with money furnished by Hankey, under an agreement by which Hankey was to furnish the money, Arimond to buy the cattle and bring them to St. Paul, and they were then to be shipped to and sold in Chicago, and the parties were to divide the profits equally. This agreement made them partners in the business of buying and selling the cattle, and also in the ownership of the cattle. With the price of this car-load, and part of the price of the other car-loads, Hankey bought the sheep, and had them brought to St. Paul. The cattle were shipped to Chicago and sold, and the sheep bought and shipped to St. Paul, in the name of Hankey alone. After the sheep arrived in St. Paul Hankey and Arimond made an agreement, by which the latter was to kill and sell the sheep, and they were to divide the profits on the sheep equally. As the defendant levied on the sheep upon an execution against Arimond, the question in the case is, was he a partner in the ownership of the sheep? He might have been a partner in the business of preparing the sheep for sale, and selling them, without having any ownership in the sheep themselves. One may be a partner in a business, or in the profits arising from it, without being partner or part-owner in the property with which it is carried on. Story on...
To continue reading
Request your trial