Mulready v. Shelton

• Decision Date: 20 August 1926
• Docket Number: 19966.
• Citation: 248 P. 416,140 Wash. 233
• Parties: MULREADY v. SHELTON et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

248 P. 416

140 Wash. 233

MULREADY v. SHELTON et al.

No. 19966.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 20, 1926

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Bell, Judge.

Action by James Mulready against Richard Shelton and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Alex M Vierhus, Oliver Anderson, and Douglas T. Ballinger, all of Everett, for appellant.

E. C Dailey and A. E. Dailey, both of Everett, for respondents.

TOLMAN C.J.

Appellant as plaintiff, brought this action to establish a copartnership and to obtain an accounting as to the partnership earnings and assets. The trial court denied him any relief, and he has appealed.

The action is an equitable one, and so tried to the court, and is of course triable de novo. We have therefore carefully considered the whole record; but, the questions involved being question of fact only, instead of setting out generally the gist of what is claimed by each party to be the facts, we will content ourselves with stating what we find to be the ultimate and controlling facts.

Respondent Richard Shelton was engaged in the automobile for hire, and perhaps in a limited way the stage, business before the relations with appellant which he relies upon to establish a partnership began. Shelton also owned a team which theretofore he had hired appellant to drive. In the early spring of 1919 a loose arrangement was entered into by which appellant was given the use of Shelton's team for the purpose of doing road work, contracting, draying, and any teamwork which offered, but neither then nor at any other time was there a partnership entered into, nor did appellant ever obtain any interest in the automobile and stage business conducted by Shelton. The arrangement as to the team was so loose and general in its inception that its terms and the rights of the parties thereunder can only a determined from their subsequent actions. Appellant boarded with the Sheltons as a part of the arrangement, and paid nothing directly for his room and meals. He worked more or less regularly with the team, probably as diligently as conditions would permit, for some four years. As his earnings came in, he gave money to Mrs. Shelton from time to time and also to Mr. Shelton, some of which was no doubt, applied to paying bills for feed for the team, but some of which went into Shelton's stage business and probably materially assisted him in...