Chlopeck v. Chlopeck

Citations

• 47 Wash. 256
• 91 P. 966
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 750

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Review—Harmless Error. Denial of a motion to amend the prayer of a complaint so as to ask a dissolution of the partnership is not prejudicial where the court properly found that there was no partnership.</p> <p>Witnesses—Competency—Transaction With Insane Person. In an action between alleged partners, one of whom was insane, an adverse party cannot testify as to who composed the partnership, under Bal. Code, § 5991, prohibiting testimony of a transaction with an insane person by a party adversely interested.</p> <p>Appeal — Preservation of Grounds — Evidence — Presentation. Error cannot be assigned upon the exclusion of evidence the materiality of which does not appear from the questions, unless the party informs the court what he expected to prove thereby so that the court could determine its materiality.</p> <p>Appeal—Review—Habmless Eebob. The admission of improper evidence is not ground for reversal in a case tried de novo on appeal.</p> <p>Partnership —■ Existence of Relationship — Evidence — Sufficiency. There is not .sufficient evidence to establish a partnership relation between a mother and son from the fact that, for twenty years before the son became insane, his mother had lived with him, advanced money for, took a general interest in, and rendered services without pay in the conduct of a fish and poultry business, conducted in the name of C. Brothers, where it appears that the son transferred the business to a corporation in consideration of stock issued to him; that the mother drew money from the business for household expenses, which, after the corporation was formed, was charged to the son; and all the circumstances were as consistent with the relation of mother and son as with that of partnership, of which there was no direct testimony.</p>