<p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;"><u><i><b>Martin v. Peyton</b></i></u></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;"><i><b>Fact :</b></i></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Mr. Peyton(hereinafter "defendant") loaned almost $500,000 of liberty bonds to John R. Hall who was a one of the partners and a friend of the defendant. Because the firm of K.N.K had financial difficulties. The defendant was offered to be a partner, but refused. Martin(hereinafter "plaintiff")'s claim is that the defendant is an actual partner with the firm of K.N.K not an estoppel partner.</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;"><i><b>Issue :</b></i></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Whether the defendant is a partner of the firm of K.N.K under partnership law.</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;"><i><b>Rule :</b></i></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">- Partnership Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 39], sec 10.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">If as a whole a contract contemplates an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit a partnership there is.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;">- Partnership Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 39], sec. 11.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">* Those who are partners between themselves may be charged for partnership debts by others.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">* Partnership results from contract, express or implied. If denied it may be proved by the production of some written instrument; by testimony as to some conversation; by circumstantial evidence. If nothing else appears the receipt by the defendant of a share of the profits of the business is enough.</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;"><i><b>Analysis :</b></i></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">In this case, it is against two section of Partnership.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;">First, the respondents were to loan K.N. K. $2,500,000 worth of liquid securities. In compensation for the loan the respondents were to receive 40 per cent of the profits of the firm until the return was made. Merely because the transaction involved the transfer of securities and not of cash does not prevent its being a loan within the meaning of </span><span style="color: #000000;"><u>section 11 of Partnership Law</u></span><span style="color: #000000;">.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Second, i</span><span style="color: #000000;">f the defendant and the firm of K.N.K were in partnership, it has to have an association of them under </span><span style="color: #000000;"><u>section 10 of Partnership Law</u></span><span style="color: #000000;">. But, in this case, it was hard to say that there was an association of business. Because the defendant is a "trustee", not a partner. What trustee required seems but ordinary caution for prohibiting dangers. Nor does it imply an association in the business. The indenture is substantially a mortgage of the collateral delivered by K.N. K. to the trustees to secure the performance of the "agreement." It certainly does not strengthen the claim that the respondents were partners.</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;"><i><b>Conclusion :</b></i></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">The defendant is not a partner of the firm of K.N.K under partnership law.</span></p><p> </p>
<!-- -->
