Ryder v. Jacobs

Citations

• 182 Pa. 624
• 41 W.N.C. 267
• 38 A. 471
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 852

Syllabus

<p>Partnership — Participation in profits — Pleading.</p> <p>Compensation for services to be paid to an employee out of and contingent on profits does not of itself constitute the employee a partner.</p> <p>In an action of assumpsit plaintiff claimed for salary as a traveling salesman under a verbal agreement, and for money loaned to the defendant. The defendant alleged that the salary was paid up to a certain date, from which date a new agreement went into effect, under which the plaintiff was to receive for his services half of the net profits of the business. He also alleged that there was no loan from plaintiff to defendant, but a repayment of money overdrawn by plaintiff, and that, as there had been no profits, nothing was owing to plaintiff. Defendant asked the court to charge that there could be no recovery if the new agreement alleged by defendant really existed. The court refused this point, unless the jury should find that there was a partnership existing after the date of the alleged new agreement. Held, that the answer was erroneous, since the plaintiff could not recover net profits even though there was no partnership, as he had declared on a fixed salary.</p> <p>Evidence — Expert witnesses — Book-keeping.</p> <p>Whether a witness be a competent expert, and whether the contention be such as calls for expert testimony, is largely in the discretion of the trial judge.</p> <p>The Supreme Court will not reverse the trial court in rejecting expert testimony to prove that certain account books showed a partnership, where it appears that the accounts themselves were of extreme simplicity, and it was doubtful if the witnesses were any greater experts in book-keeping than at least one half of the jury.</p>