United Brokers' Co. v. Dose

• Decision Date: 23 May 1933
• Parties: UNITED BROKERS' CO. v. DOSE.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

22 P.2d 204

143 Or. 283

UNITED BROKERS' CO. v. DOSE.

Supreme Court of Oregon

May 23, 1933

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Hall S. Lusk, Judge.

Action by the United Brokers' Company against Fred Dose, who filed counterclaim. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

G. G Smith, of Portland, for appellant.

James H. McMenamin and Normal Kuykendall, both of Portland, for respondent.

BELT, Justice.

In April, 1929, plaintiff and defendant entered into a joint adventure whereby they agreed to finance and assist one Luther Harrel in producing a crop of potatoes on 200 acres of land owned by Harrel. It was agreed that one-half of the profits derived from sale of potatoes should go to Harrel the other half to be divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. Pursuant to this contract, a crop of potatoes was produced which netted a profit of $36,772.16. Of this amount plaintiff and defendant were each entitled to $9,193.04. Plaintiff charges in his complaint that defendant who collected the partnership share, has paid to him only the sum of $8,227.13, and there is still due $965.91 which defendant has failed and refused to pay.

The second cause of action is based upon advances made by plaintiff to defendant, amounting to $1,009.06, one-half of which amount the defendant agreed to repay.

There is no dispute relative to this cause of action.

Defendant admits the contract as alleged in the complaint and the amount of money received as profit from sale of the potatoes. He alleges, however, a payment to plaintiff of $8,263.13 instead of $8,227.13. This difference of $36 in payment was conceded by plaintiff on trial.

Defendant as a further defense and counterclaim alleges that there is due him, as compensation for services rendered as general manager and in the sale of the potatoes, the sum of $1,155.

Defendant also, as a part of his counterclaim, demands contribution from plaintiff by reason of money which defendant expended in settlement of an automobile accident which occurred while acting within the scope of the partnership business.

Plaintiff in its reply denied the new matter alleged by way of counterclaim.

The trial court denied the counterclaims, and, on the first cause of action, entered a decree in favor of plaintiff for $929.91, together with interest thereon at rate of 6 per cent. per annum until paid, and, on the second cause of action, entered a decree in favor of plaintiff for $504.33 together with interest thereon at rate of 6 per cent. per annum from April 25, 1930, until paid. Defendant appeals.

Relative to the claim of compensation for services rendered by defendant, it is clear that the court was right in denying the same. There is no evidence of any express agreement that defendant was to receive compensation for his services. The rule applicable is thus stated in 20 R. C. L. 877: "The general rule is that a partner is not entitled to compensation for services in conducting the partnership business beyond his share of the profits unless there is a stipulation to that effect, and that he has no right by implication to claim anything extra by reason of any inequality of services rendered by him, as compared with those rendered by his copartners."

The second counterclaim arose out of an automobile accident which occurred while defendant, Dose, was driving to Washington to inspect some potatoes. The trip was made with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. Dan Schuler, who accompanied Dose, was injured as a result...