Fairly v. Nash

Citations

• 70 Miss. 193

Syllabus

<p>1. Partnership. What constitutes. Sharing net profits. Intent.</p> <p>An agreement to share in the net profits of a business is not a conclusive test of a partnership. The intent of the parties, if not inconsistent with tiie terms of the contract, will control.</p> <p>2. Same. Case in judgment.</p> <p>Nash and Skellinger agreed that Nash should furnish the money and buy goods, and Skellinger should “ take charge of the business as agent and manager for Nash, and devote his whole time and attention to it, for which services he should receive half the net profits after paying debts, expenses and advances by Nash.” The sign at the store was “W. S. Skellinger, agent for D. A. Nash.” Held, not a partnership.</p> <p>3. Same. Character of contract. Minor stipulations.'</p> <p>The character of said contract, as creating a mere agency and not a partnership, is not changed by other stipulations, in it, relating to mere details of management, such as employment of clerks, keeping books, stated accountings, and division of profits, and the requirement that such agent shall also divide profits derived from any outside business engaged in by him.</p> <p>4. Auenoy. Mcmagerr. Power to bind principal by note.</p> <p>An agent, having general authority to manage his principal’s mercantile business, has, by virtue of his employment, no implied power to bind his principal by making, accepting or indorsing negotiable paper.</p> <p>5. Same. Execution of note. Principal not. bound thereon.</p> <p>Although a note executed by such general 'agent, signed in his name as agent, was for money borrowed to pay debts of the business, the principal is not liable in an action on the note, whatever may be his liability if sued on the common counts for the money so used.</p>