VAN DEMAN & LEWIS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES DEMOS AND C. D. ABBOTT, PARTNERS AS ATLANTIC CIGAR STORE, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed a judgment for the defendants in an assumpsit action. The plaintiff sued partners, but the court found no evidence of a partnership and that the jury properly considered whether the defendant held himself out as a partner, inducing the plaintiff to extend credit.
No, the court held that the instruction was justified by the evidence, and the issues regarding holding out as a partner and reliance on that holding out were fairly submitted to the jury.
“The court instructs you that in this case that no evidence has been introduced or shown that any contract of partnership existed between Abbott and Demos, and-there is not shown by the evidence the existence of a partnership of fact between Abbott and Demos. That you must therefore ascertain from a preponderance of the evidence whether the defendant, Demos, held out or permitted, himself to be held out as a partner, and whether the plaintiff had knowledge of such holding out, and was induced to extend credit on the faith of such holding out.”
This quote represents the jury instruction that was central to the appeal, outlining the court's guidance on partnership and holding out.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued Demos and Abbott as partners. A default was entered against Abbott, and Demos pleaded that he was not a partner. The trial court in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Partnership By Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The plaintiff in erorr brought an action of ássumpsit against Demos and Abbott as partners. There was judgment for defendant and the plaintiff took writ of error. A default was entered against Abbott, and Demos pleaded to the merits and that he never was--a. partner with-Abbott. ...
Among the errors assigned is the giving of the following instruction:
“The court instructs you that in this case that no evidence has been introduced or shown that any contract of partnership existed between Abbott and Demos, and-there is not shown by the evidence the existence of a partnership of fact between Abbott and Demos. That you must therefore ascertain from a preponderance of the evidence whether the defendant, Demos, held out or permitted, himself to be held out as a partner, and whether the plaintiff had knowledge of such holding out, and was induced to extend credit on the faith of such holding out.”
This charge was justified by the evidence, since there was no evidence to show the formation or the existence of a partnership as between the defendants.
At the request of the plaintiff the court charged the jury fully upon the question of joint liability as distinguished from a liability of the defendants as partners, and the charges complained of, if erroneous., are not harmful in view of the evidence.
As no partnership between the defendants was shown, there was no error in rejecting as Primary evidence a mercantile report relative to such a partnership, which was not shown to be a correct statement of information obtained from Abbott with the knowledge of Demos.
The issues whether Demos held himself out or permitted, himself to be held out as a partner, and whether the plaintiff had knowledge of such holding out, and was induced to extend credit on the faith of-such holding out, were fairly submitted to the jury and they found for the defendants..
- This finding is not unlawful under the evidence, and as no material error.s of procedure appear, the judgment rendered for the defendants is affirmed.
Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emil Mach v. Mayo, 80 Fla. 372 (Fla. 1920)…himself to be held out as such to the plaintiff who was misled }>y such holding out on Mach’s part and induced to extend' the, credit to what he believed was the co-partnership. See Rule 24 Circuit Courts Law Actions; Van Deman & Lewis Co. v. Demos, 64 Fla. 533, 60 South. Rep. 342,; Doggett v. Jordan, 2 Fla. 541; Snowden v. Cunningham, 59 Fla. 604, 51 South. Rep. 543; Smith v. Westcott, 34 Fla. 430, 16 South. Rep. 332; 21 Standard Ency. of Proc., 79; 20 R. C. L. 849; 10 R. C. L. 898; Dubos v. Jones, 34 Fla…