Gentry v. Singleton
Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory
Appeal from the United States Court for the Northern District. William M Springer, Judge. Action by Thomas G. Singleton against William E. Gentry. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. This is an action in the nature of the common-law action of trover to recover the value of 56 head of cattle which the plaintiff alleged the defendant wrongfully took and converted to his own use.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the United States Court for the Northern District. William M Springer, Judge. Action by Thomas G. Singleton against William E. Gentry. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. This is an action in the nature of the common-law action of trover to recover the value of 56 head of cattle which the plaintiff alleged the defendant wrongfully took and converted to his own use. The facts areas follows: The plaintiff, Thomas G. Singleton, appellee herein, and who resided at Fredonia, Kansas, and J. A. Skaggs, who resided at Shawnee, Oklahoma Territory, in the Spring of 1897, entered into…
1Opinion of the Court
Thomas, J.,
Partnership. Agency. Under the facts in this case, the appellee and J. A. Skaggs were partners. Singleton was to do nothing but furnish the money, and Skaggs was to buy and sell, and divide the profit equally with Singleton. This constituted them partners. Mr. Bates, in his work on Partnership (volume 1. p. 48, § 35), says; “Where A. contributes services in collecting and buying hogs and cattle, and B. furnishes the capital, profits to be divided, nothing being said about losses, there is a community of profits, and therefore a partnership, and A. cannot sue B. at law for his…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Saltus & Saltus v. EverettNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Leggett v. . HydeNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Mowrey v. WalshNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- CALAIS STEAMBOAT COMPANY v. Van Pelt's AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
3Cited by1 opinion
- Moore v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1901