OCR Text |
Show PAGE FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 1970 THE DAILY RECORD FOUR FINANCING STATEMENTS ri25b6 - Paul A Kensington, sic TamLko Shlmabukuro 531 to City Fin Co; hh gds - Robert L A Chari e Jan Zuspans South 900 West, sic to Beneficial Fin Co; FVeezer, Dishwasher 212507 5?.0 J Marcus 3rd North West A B, Angie 593 Trujillo slo to Beneficial - Ted Cathy Maddox A 136 South 4th East, sic to Beneficial Fin Co; - sic to Redwood John Wold 2121 South 5th East, Ktrs ; Motor Vehicle 212574 - Helen 1300 East, sic K to Cervekna 1715 South KPT A In; Oons gds 212576 - Milan G Burton 737 South 3200 West, West Jordan to Comm Sec Bk; gine 212573 - Ralph A Mary Astorga 203 East 5o00 South, Murray to 3udget In A Fin Plan; hh gds, Fhrr.ishlngs - 212579 Edwards 3772 South T Terry 9th East, sic to Redwood Ktrs , ; Mtrs; Carper 212593 - Wayne Kelvin Drawer 4995 West 3945 South, Hunter to Redwood Mrs; Vehicle of slot - 2nd G&sela C Christian 1751 West Fin AETNA Co of - Thelma Gruandell 669 East 7th South, sle to Capitol In Co; Fim , Appl, FHuipt 210619 - Charles A Dorans Truer 2759 West 2935 South, slo to SLC Finp Cr tti Boat, Trlr, Motors 210620 - Blaine L A Carolyn B Morgan 1148 South 10th West, slo to SLC Etap Cred Un; Autos, Appl, FUm - Craig A Kathy M Possalli ll6l Starling Drive, sle to SLC hra Cred Un; Stereo Console, Film, Range 210622 On appeal, defendant Broadbent contends that the 129 Bradwich hh gds of sic; 212595 - Dean 3 A Carol Christenson 1037 South 14th West, sic to AETVA Fir. Co of 'sic; hh gds Appellant argues that the Broadbent-Fredricksarrangement did not constitute a joint venture because there was no joint participation in profits or losses. Neither would share in or be affected by the profits or losses of the other, i. e. , fluctuations in livestock prices would affect Broadbent but not Fredrickson; feed costs would affect Fredrickson but riot on Broadbent. In Bates v. Simpson this court observed that a joint venture is in the nature of a partnership; and to establish such an arrangement, there must be an agreement, express or implied, for the sharing of profits. In Hayes v. Killinger2 the court made a thoughtful and complete analysis of the legal concept of joint venture and concluded: In summary we see that in order to create a joint adventure it is not enough that the parties act in concert to - achieve some economic objective. The ultimate inquiry is whether the parties manifested by their conduct a desire to commingle their profits, control, and risks in achieving Refrig the objective. - David L 3237 East 600 Un; Guns, TV, A Suzanne SLC Emp Cr An agreement, express or implied, fer the sharing of is indispensable to the profits among the creation of the joint venture; and the profit accruing must be joint and not several. ers 210625 - J Terence A Elsie S Dawson 1346 West 2320 South, sle to SLC Emp Cr Un; Auto, Piano, Fbro, Appl 210626 - George M A Ester P SLC Erg) Hooper 550 Cr Un; Fhm, Sewing Machine, Vacuum, TV, Appl 210627 - Mickey E Begent 1468 West Wasatch Ave, sic to SLC Em Cred Uh; Pickup, Camper Shu'tt k Sont, Pla.niiti and Roppcnci. The foregoing principle is well illustrated in Conner v. Great Westd Loan Association and Realty Development Company v. ern Sav.r.gs ai Feit.5 Ir the Realty Development case the court obse rved that the following three requirements were essential for a joint adventure and that none alone was sufficient: There must be joint interest in the property by the parlies sought to be held as partners; (2) there must be agreements, express or implied, to share in the profits or losses oi the venture, and (3) there must be cticri and conduct showing cooperation in the project. . . . 1 Nc. .1937 n: FILED v. A J. Broadbent and Earl dneksor., Deftr.darp and Appellant, -- fist 17, CAL LiSTER. justice- 1970 L M. Cummings, Clerk In i Broatsbcnt was the- owner ot several ihousacd head of cattle, contract with Earl Fredricks .ir. the terms of which were he entered srto h was introduced into subscquentl v reduced 10 w riting. The contract, whu and feed at his v vich-ne, provided that Fredrickson would take possession 1963 to June 1, soli- cost' ar.d expt ns Broadbent's cattle from November I, Fredrickson was to receive fifteen cents per pound As 1964 - R : 3. Williston cr. Cor.tr ts (3d Ed. ), $ 318A, p. 571. 4. 69 C. 2d 850, 73 Cal. Rprr. 369, 447 P. 2d 609, 615 (1968). 5. 154 C010. 44, 387 P. 2d 898, 899 (1963). - 1 j court emphasized that the i.hief characteristi: of a joint advenprofit. The court concluded that there was joirt ar.d not a sn no joirt vcrturc. wh're each party to the agreement would make a profit or sustain a loss witho-i- any regard to the other's profit cr ess. T. ii2TutairrrV702T9 P. 2d 749 1953L 2. 235 Or. 465. 385 P. 2d 747, 754 (1963). is a t Pi.i.Tt::! ir.it.au d this action to recove r the unpaid balance for servcreated ir. feeding ices render i d. specifically the chopping of hay ior caitlo both deSots r.car Burl. v. Idaho. PU.nt.tl was awarded judgment against dant B'oadbvnt. alone, appeals. fendants dc-fc- 1; The ture R Fn . . . freeman H South, slo to Fum, Appl In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah Vc-rr- . trial court erred in its conclusion that the two defendants were engaged in a joint venture. He asserts that the undisputed evidence indicated that Fredrickson fed the cattle as an independent contractor; and, therefore, there was no legal ground upon which to predicate Broadbent's liability. Dalton L A Juanita A Show 1965 Springcreek Drive, sle to SLC Eknp Cr Un; Boat, Motor, Stereo, Plano, TVs, 210623 Post Street, sic to 212554 Rd, sic Oo Calvin North Tensile, slo to sic; Fum 210624 Vahid 212532 - John Borman A Carrie Lee Abbott 1160 Sego Lilly Drive, Sandy to Redwood Paul T A Ruth Roy to AEZ Fir. co Pin 210621 - Errol L A Irens D Pettit 1540 East 7200 South, slo to SLC Etap Cred Un; Autos, Power Saw, Organ, TV 212575 - Veme G A June A Finlayson 2332 East Creek Road, Sandy to Murray 'St 3k; Mink, kits Scraper, AETNA The trial court found that Broadbent waa the owner of certain cattle that Broadbent and Fredrickson were jointly feeding and that at their request plain tiff chopped hay; and that there was a balance due of $1, 035. 05 which had not been paid although demand had been made. The court concluded plaintiff was entitled to judgment, interest, and costs. 212600 212571 - Douglas Stockton 5519 South 4270 West, Kearns to Draper Bk A Tr; Xare 212573 - Viola Caine j6k? So A A A Shirley Nelson South, Sandy to AETNA Fin of slo; Stereo 212598 Fin Co; 212569 212597 133 East Co - 212569 212596 - Robert G 6930 West, slo to hh gds the Conner case the court stated: A joint venture exists when there is an agreement between the parties under which they have a community of interest, that is, a joint interest, in a common business undertaking, and understanding as to the sharing of profits and losses, and a right of joint control. . . . c - compi further Ba:r in wnghi made by the cattle during this period. Fredrickson with the corrected agreed to hold Broadbent harmless from any obligation this of interim. the cattle during feeding and rare Pursuant to the contract, Fredrickson arauired a feeding location at the Steele Ranch, which was operated by Car: Nelson and Vo" Kir.caid. Carl Nvlbcn asked plaintiff to chop hay at the ranch. Plaintiff testified that him that he was chopping for Fredrickson. Plaintiff adIson he attempted mitted that he had never had any contact with Br.,dbent until that he did not testified 1964. Plairt.if tolled the indebtedness in May 01 and Broadbent with Fredrickson the business relationship be'weer. discui-Fndrukscu Piaift.M received one payment oi SI, C00 from Fredrickson ir.f-rm- ed s o' the r di Vi i - - existed. the instant action, the undisputed evidence indicated that the contract profits accruing to either party to the Broadbent-Fredrickso- n were several and not joint. Under such circumstances the cattle feeding transaction was not, as a matter of law, a joint venture. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with an order to render judgment in accordance with this opihion. Costs are awarded to appellant. In dr.c s.--. re-- q Carl W.snr, testified that Fredrukso, was the only person who of 1963 to of the cattle from Dec ember February 22, . led an- and l''64 ll'iwt ver, Fn dm kson did inform Nelson that lh cattle were owned Nelson had no knowledge of l hi business arrangement. by lirf..i'!b- r.i aliho-g- h furthi r u stifu-- that he knew Fredrickson was fcidir.g rattle for seven or .uM other persons. -- The California court observed that although the profits of each of the two participating corporate entities were dependent on the overall success of the project, neither was to share in the profits or losses that the other might realize or suffer. Although each received substantial payments, neither had an interest in the payments received by the other. The court concluded that under these circumstances no joint venture WE CONCUR: fri-chr- K. L. Tuckett, Justice - 1 to Burley, i)i I. nrlar.t Broadbent testified that he shipped his cattle to e advam sums in purchase hay. :,j defend. r.' Fredrickson began drawing cl excess of in hiof 1961. the amounts already advanced appear, and discovered a:i a', tic i paled gam on the rattle Broadbent went to Idaho wra involved in feeding arrangements with several individuals Fn dric con-s-u. a:. xiensr.i- basis, and that the hay previously purchased had been d Rased on the contemplated gain, there were no funds under the tract 'o pay fur further feed. The two defendants had a conference in d r ic kson advised Broadbent that he would ii,i ri.iddl'- ol Fe bruary, and be able- to provide fee d and care. The arrangement was terminated no long' lo take charge of the b. , : ' 1. a consent. B roadb. rit sent his ranch urred subsequently m all indebtedness ini opt r .'ior, ,r,d directed h:m to pay o! the Cattle. t)ii' F. Henri Henriod, Justice 1 B-- . - A. H. Ellett, Justice k-- on r.- - (,' n - - 1 fo.-cma- I IJi Oh h.,-- , for lor Hi.- - f nduiil F red r ic kson 1 stifled that he. had 1 c not rar 1 to teed the fi.r plaint if! to chop .1 gain basis, that he arranged through i 5(1 per Inn. and that Broadbent had advanced in exits, ol $75,000 ding I CROCKETT, Chief Justice: (Concurring specially) concur in the order made because it i's not shown that the was any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Broadbent, nor was there any relationship of partnership or joint venture between the defendant Broadbent and Fredrickson of the nature necessary for the latter to bind Broadbent in the transaction with the plaintiff. See Annotation: What Amounts to Joint Venture, 48A,L.R. 1055, et seq. ; 18 C.J.S. 812. I 1 Ni-limr- . 6. Note 4, supra. |