HILL v. MILLER

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

12523, 12643

Attorney(S)

Joseph H. Budd, and Grove L. Johnson, for Appellant. McKune George, for Respondent.

Judges

James D. Thornton

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from an action to establish a partnership concerning a hay-press and to settle the partnership accounts. A judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied. The defendant appeals both from the judgment and the order denying the new trial.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the patent issued for the hay-press, obtained during the existence of the partnership and under an agreement that the hay-press would be part of the partnership stock, belongs to the partnership.
Whether the absence of a written assignment of a half interest in the patent affects the plaintiff's equitable ownership of that interest as a partner.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sumerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279	Equitable ownership of partnership property can arise from a parol agreement, even without a written assignment.	Supported the court's conclusion that the plaintiff, as a partner, equitably owned one half of the patent despite no written assignment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found the evidence sufficient to justify the lower court's decision. It determined that the defendant contributed the hay-press as part of the partnership's capital stock, and a patent issued to the defendant during the partnership's existence belonged to the partnership under their agreement. The court emphasized that the lack of a written assignment did not defeat the plaintiff’s equitable ownership of one half of the patent interest, relying on established equitable principles and precedent. The court therefore properly held that the patent was partnership property.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed both the judgment and the order denying the new trial.

This decision directly resolves the dispute between the parties by confirming the partnership's ownership of the patent and upholding the prior judgment. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing equitable principles to the facts.

Show full summary ...

JOSEPH H. HILL, RESPONDENT, v. S. H. MILLER, APPELLANT.

THORNTON, J.

Action to establish partnership in a hay-press, and to settle partnership accounts in which a judgment for plaintiff was entered and given. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he prosecutes these appeals, one from the judgment and the other from the order denying a new trial.

The evidence is sufficient to justify the decision of the court below.

The court below found that the defendant put in the hay-press as a part of the capital stock, for which a patent was afterward issued to him. The patent was obtained for the hay-press while the copartnership was in existence, and while the plaintiff and defendant, as copartners, were manufacturing the hay-presses. We think the court properly held that the patent so issued under an agreement that the hay-press should go into the partnership as part of its stock belonged to the partnership.

It is a matter of no consequence that there was no written assignment of a half interest in the patent by defendant to plaintiff. The plaintiff, as a partner, became in equity the owner of one half of the patent, though the agreement was by parol. On this point see Sumerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279, which is adverse to defendant's contention, and which sustains the conclusion here reached.

We find no error in the record.

The judgment in cause No. 12523 and the order in cause No. 12643 are affirmed.

WORKS, J., McFARLAND, J., PATERSON, J., and SHARPSTEIN, J., concurred.