Pulford v. Morton

• Citation: 62 Mich. 25,28 N.W. 716
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 17 June 1886
• Parties: PULFORD v. MORTON.

28 N.W. 716

62 Mich. 25

PULFORD v. MORTON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 17, 1886

Appeal from Wayne.

Thomas Smurthwaite, for plaintiff.

Meddaugh Driggs & Harmon, for appellee.

CAMPBELL C.J.

Complainant filed his bill originally against defendant and his brother Robert Morton, both of Canada, to get a partnership accounting of an alleged land partnership between complainant and the present defendant, and to get conveyance and partition of complainant's interest, claimed to be one-half, in certain Detroit lots. These lots complainant insists were purchased by him for $1,056 on partnership account, for half cash, and the remainder on mortgage, and the title, for convenience, placed in the name of Robert Morton, but purely for the benefit of the partners. This purchase and arrangement are claimed to have taken place in 1883, and during the same year defendant refused to carry out the arrangements made for a sale of the land by complainant under his alleged authority, as intrusted with that business and denied complainant's interest. The bill was filed in June, 1885. After the bill was filed Robert Morton transferred the title to defendant, and, by stipulation, was discharged from the suit, saving all rights of both parties unimpaired. The equities are all denied, and the parties are in direct conflict. Reliance is also had on the statute of frauds, as there were no writings between the parties. The bill was dismissed, and complainant appeals.

The case presents two principal issues; one concerning the partnership in general, and one concerning the particular lots in question.

There is no evidence, and no definite claim, that the partnership was for any particular time, or that any other purchase of lands was made for it before or after. The agreement, as set up in the bill, is that about the first of June, 1883, the parties entered into an agreement of copartnership, whereby complainant was to look up property for sale at rates promising a profit, to control it, and secure sales, at reasonable profit. Each was to contribute half of the purchase price and expenses, and, on sale, to share profits and losses. It will be observed that under this scheme there was to be no partnership fund created, or placed in anybody's hands, and that, as stated money was only to be advanced on purchases when made. Neither was by this agreement authorized to bind the concern by purchase or by credit, unless such power is to be inferred, but it may be inferred that a power of sale was meant to be alleged in complainant. Defendant claims there was no such partnership, and raises no point on the form of the allegations. The only proof of the terms of such partnership, if one existed, is given by complainant. The admissions sworn to by others, and relied on to show its existence, throw no light on its terms, and do not indicate necessarily any interest beyond the simple purchase.

Complainant in his direct testimony, sets out that he was a land-dealer in Detroit, and defendant an attorney in Windsor, Ontario; that, meeting defendant in...