Legal Opinion

Beard v. Rowland

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 10, 1905No. 14,206PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error from Lyon district court; Dennis Madden, judge.

1Per curiam

The judgment in this case depends upon the interpretation to be given to a written agreement. The only argument in favor of the position that the agreement created a partnership is the fact that the earnings of a certain business were to be applied to the purchase of property,- which, when ultimately acquired by two of the parties, was to be divided by them with the third. It is not true, however, that profit-sharing is the unfailing test of the existence of a. partnership relation. While it may be one of the tests, it may be controlled by other considerations. (Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Shepard v. PrattSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Shoemake v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1937
  2. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company v. United States of America for the Use of H. C. Jones, Doing Business as H. C. Jones Construction Company, Burden Ivy Barfield, Bourdon Ray Barfield, and Oliver Eakle Barfield, as Co-Partners Doing Business as Barfield Construction Company v. United States of America for the Use of H. C. Jones, Doing Business as H. C. Jones Construction CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
  3. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. United States ex rel. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956
  4. Wade v. HornadaySupreme Court of Kansas · 1914
  5. Simmons v. ShaftSupreme Court of Kansas · 1914

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API