OCR Text |
Show face 4 Wednesday, August 27, 1958 THE DAILY RECORD i Supreme Court of the State of Utah Defendant testified that plaintiff the view taken by the trial court "A. Yes. Yes.-- V a Q. You had been living' away lad said he didnt want to stay hat the parties entered into from her? here any longer. anyway, oint venture for their mutual to rent it or lease it "A. Yes sir. were le wanted to come home, and. he rofit is not unreasonable in the we didnt know, but no Q. And you had been away old me he did. He was sick of it ight of the circumstances disdefinite (from her how' many He didnt want any more to do closed by the evidence. It was a anything was talked about. We thought months? with it. She further testified: :amHy affair, and as frequently In May, plaintiff went to deif we could maybe put up A. Fifteen. "So as timie went on, I began accurs in matter of that character, fendant and told her he (thought some type of business to Yet on to see that he was hiring more he parties did not take the plainthere was a chance to make some some trailer courts in tiff testified: get He rouble either to come to a clear and more work done, money by getting a trailer court or eomething, that it might Did take other Q. was off prospecting quite a bit understanding, or to seduce their any you at Moat), Utah, or leasing or rentwork into a good enough amounts River the (from of the time, or was puttering plan to writing. They simply went ing some land to put one on. He so we might be business, Sands Trailer Court operaaround doing other things, and along pursuing' the general suggested to defendant that Ae able to share profits from tion? of developing this business I mean he didnt receive the purchase property and employ the business.' "A. a few Well, retrips. yes, with understanding and hope that he didn't even receive the plaintiff to manage it Plaintiff, to come When would what When I asked said, up plaintiff ceipts from the trailer court. t would eventually work out to defendant and defendants mother defendant testified: beck Salt Lake up here, He went to Moab at Plaintiffs suggave rent for that, and I their mutual advantage. As is (here once in a while, I "He we both take 'Well, said, got a little disgusted the last also not too unusual in such sitgestion to look the situation over. use would ' money. gas chance on He said it.' a will I time I went down, and I said uations, It didnt Defendant testified at the takQ. How many trips did you are take what coming receipts to of her Vinal, I said, 'Vinal,' I said, ing deposition: At (the trial the parties were make during the fifteen off, and I just need some money . . . I didnt go Into any type seem as though you not in disagrement as to the above doesn't 'it months? to send to my wife and to live of partnership with him on any are doing yourself much good general purpose, but as appellant A. Oh, I would say I dont a little bit, and we will see or me either.' I said, 'You are states in her brief, their testiproperty that I know of. 1 mean on know half a dozen or that wasn't even talked about If we can work it up into a busihiring all your work done,' and mony, "shows substantial disamore. I didnt keep ness we maybe where able be might or considered (Emphasis I said, T may as well take over greement on the questions in track. to make some money between added) and run it because I can run it dispute in this i.e., what Q. What do you estimate each both of us from the business itDefendant was then asked the Sait Lake as good as business arrangement existed befrom in cost? one them of self.' following questions, and gave. anyou are doing here "A. Oh, about five or six dol- tween them; had it been terminswers as follows: We are of the opinion that no 'So I went down oh, may- ated; and what were their presIsrSa Q. 'All sight, now, what kind partnership existed between plainbe in June I went down, and ent obligations. 'Plaintiff testified at the taking of agreements did you tiff and defendant for an equal of his he was working in the post deposition that he took in After hearing all of the evihave with. Mr. Vinal Mil-le- sharing of the profits of the trailer an taksomeonle he had and office, about of $240.00 per average dence the trial court made certain to come down there court business. Die contention of month ing care of the redepts that I observations reflecting his views starved to half "and and spend his time? plaintiff that a full fledged equal didn't think was capable of do- of Yet Exhibit 7 shows recethe facts as shown by the eviA. There were no definte ar- partnership existed in the entire death. startfired so and her I it, ing of months five last the for rangements or agreements, trailer court and cabins, including ipts ed taking over the receipts, dence: 1954 in the amount of more than the and that his rights the only thing was that land, The parties were goand So I talked it through with without considering we didnt know what was vested without his doing anything, $2,400.00 a business and hopinto ing Vinak I said, 'wellf I said, money not receipted for and withgoing to happen or how discredits his entire claim. ing that they were both go- -, 'you are sick of it here,' and I out charging (himself for the free how or would We are go things of (the opinion from the ing to prosper by it. . . said, 'nothing seems to be hapthe (business would do. mass of indefinite testimony that rent given for work done. " I am of the opinion . . . pening, and you would rather Plaintiff with a free hand took What we talked about was no partnership was ever formed, a little bit off that bounuced it go back to Salt Lake.' I said, opening a trailer court and but that a business arrangement n money not accounted for, de. side .when the lady had to 'Let's just terminate everything, then possibly building was entered into which was pre- tailed a sad story of starving to and buy the land you' to back to Salt Lake' cabins and renting them, liminary to and constituted a con- death and living away from his His labor ought to he and he said, Well, thats fine and 11 we made good, then dition precedent Ibo any partner- wife for 15 months, when in truth offset by her buying the materwith me. That is real fine. that was all right. ship. The only conclusion war- he probably had more money durial that went on the ground, "So I helped him, and my . . . What arrangements ranted from the Q. testimony and the ing his sojourn there than durand I think they had an acfried who was there with me. were made with him to relationship of the parties is this. ing any other equal period durcount between themselves . . . Miss Em Ullock, she had been compensate him for his Defendant was made the trailer and his life, ing to at the time he left down there, pur- court willing helping me. Both of us helped time? pay (for six or mare visits to chase and tor the the land but since then we ought to pay him get ready, and I drove his A. He was to collect the his wife and lived the life of court materials and a trailer for newer figure an accounting car, at the time, and he money and do the work, while he paid others with Riley to was and build it plaintiff up drove a real older car that he The court thus indicated thalt and that was to compensate free rent to do wat he was exthere and do work and the stay on had and his was trailer he and him. He pulled already thought there was a joint venit. He was to collect the pected to do. During the last operate Miss autoUllock drove the ture for mutual profit In the enunemployment compensafive months of 1954, he received to was that and compenmoney mobile I had, and the three of tire project, except that it was tion. He had been (for some sate him. The conclusion is in- and kept at least $1,200.00 that he us came hack together. (Em- originally planned (that they time I had helped with not to ac- didn't show he received. a loan that he had which escapable thalt he was would rent land rather than buy phasis added) in the business Before we can find that a included his car and some quire any interest Emma Ullock testified that she it, and that when the defendant the business was built up partnership existed we must swalother loan which was sixty until was in Moab for some time was required to buy the land, it to where it was a good business low his incredible that de- to the time plaintiff left prior did not dollars a month plus his story conform to their original that would make money and then, fendant would invest over unemployment compensa-- . and "Q. During that period did you intention. In that connection he only then, was there to be a (tion. I had been (helping in in real estate, expend bear any "discussions of said: "If those people could- have constitute would that (him with it. I wanted to relationship excess of $4,000.00 for materials Vinal Millett leaving .. rented a space down there or the plain- for I wanted a partnership. However, 13 cabins and other help Vinal. improveA. He tiff took for a period of months yes, he said he was- taken a lease on the ground, there to do something for all a ments as in and let plaintiff nt happy, he was tired of would have been a partnership, that was collected. He left dehim. entire in the Ml partner project of Moab and had had and I Havent any doubt about to meet fendant the bills; while Q. How much did you agree he hired others to major he was to put nothing exabout all he wanted of that at all. work. his do to pay him? enand know how his be cept alHe rent that kind of life. for and work gave Based upon the above obserA. I didnt agree to pay him one-ha- lf titled to 0 $20,000.-0of the lowed credit lots Did on defendant of he exindicate he "Q. that vations he concluded that the fair anything. We didnt know for work that he should have investment because he had1 pected to return? what kind of a business we done. Besides thing to do would be to " . . . failed to do what he was supposed to to "A. Not report I failing that of. know make her (plaintiff) whole with were going to have. There to do end used her property to no evidence that there the land, and then the partnerThere is was no agreement on any- defendant that he took in $5,569.39 prior to July 20, 1955, a period of pay others to do what he was was an accounting between plain- ship go as It was intended. thing because we didnt about 13 or 14 months, he also supposed to do. His brother Ira ' tiff and defendant at the time know what we were going In accord with the above view, to build rent the free others first and for cabin, doing helped (to run into; we didnt gave left Plaintiff did not the trial court denied the plainto was he another what It do. worked brother supposed six plaintiff know what type of (busi- cannot to interest testify any accounting. As a tiffs claim to one-ha- lf be questioned that plaintiff weeks, and both were paid by matter ness. Vinal said, 1 will of did and entirenot the fact, it land, plaintiff awarding to account to defendant for defendant. He had two carpenters take a chance on it.' He failed consider that he had to to account to the the 'defendant. As ly at least $3,500.00 for said period, build the sixth cabin and defend- to said, I think we can get defendant for rest the of transaction the from he receipts regardmoney taken from re- ant gave them a building lot and the court enough trailers in to pay including trailer nor assuma as did ed He it he partnership! to meet his car payments free rent in payment The elecme, to weep me, and may- ceipts so. do ever But it now appears ed that the parties had acquiesced amount of $45.50 per month trical work, the plumbing work be enough to send my wife in the that he received not less than in a balance of acoounls when 11 to send months, and $375.00 and the road construction work some money'; and during for $1,200.00 more than he ever ad- the plaintiff left; but required to his wife. Plaintiff represented were contracted out by plaintiff that period of time while and testified that he put in his and paid for by defendant. De- mitted. But it was his contention the defendant to account to plainhe got started, I did give entire time at the trailer the profits court, fendant painted the cabins her- that all that was taken In was tiff for one-ha- lf him sixty dollars a month, his to He never realized turned thalt a after for weeks or keep. five time, resultworking self. and Mother gave his wife except over dollar to on Moab. defendant. office new at in the the post ing judgment of $781.36; We are convinced that if a groceries. We tried to help He emThe the is this and from ithait plaintiff reversed also judgement and money kept adjudged them all we could. partnership ever existed, it was remanded to the district cour was entitled to one-ha- lf for the except payment ployment, of the Q. Now, if this developed into of one small dissolved in July, 1955, and each with directions to dismiss while bill, the value of paying plainimprovements a good business venture from the trader a woman party released the other. The con- tiffs complaint and discharge on the land by his efforts. placed I am that Would make money, to run the trailerreceipts court. The rec- clusion that all accounts had been deefndant and the property a not Impresdse that Ithe evidence were you to get your origord showS that during his entire settled and terminated between Moab from any claim whatso- so dearly preponderates against inal investment back? court he plaintiff and defendant at tha; ever of the plaintiff. No costs the findings and conclusions of A. I was with the business period at the trailer never collected rentals date seems Irresistible. . personally awarded. the trial court that the Judgment itself, then Vinal and I but gave to woman rent free a Plaintiff testified that he should just be reversed. 2 WE CONCUR: would, if there were good do this tor him. The record also wanted to rest a for take month a to were we then profits, went pros- or two and then return. Yet he Roger I. McDonough, divide the profits. (Em- shows that plaintiff 1. For Chancellor Kents classic was Chief Justice from the and away testified pecting that within a week after phasis added) court a great deal. Lester A. Wade, Justice definition, and others, see 40 Am. his return to Salt Lake City he When asked what discussion she Jur. 126, f He testified as follows on direc got a job and worked at that job had with plaintiff relative to the 2. As to the verity to be inuntil November 1955. business venture defendant an-- examination. HENRIOD, J. concurs in result. dulged determinations of the swered: Plaintiff took all his persona "Q. Now, (had your wife been in court trial actions in see "A. Nothing was definite. We living In Salt Lake City belongings with him, including CROCKETT, Justice: (Dissenting Nokes v. Cont. Min. & equity Mill. Co. were going down trying to his house trailer and two cars. all this time? I dissent: It seems to me tha 6 Utah 2d 177, 308 P.2d 954. (Continued (from page 3) mother and (had vision, and some to spare. Defendant tad given him $60 each month in March, April and May, 1954, to prevent his losing his automobile. f ind we went down to try (bo find some place to put a business. Whether we -- "... . ... cross-examinatio- n ob-ecit- ive - . . ... law-suit: . ... . tt "... ... "... ... ... ... ... $16,-000.- 00 - ... ... -- - ; . ; : ; |