| Summary: | John Willis, a blacksmith, entered into an agreement with the proprietors of a blacksmith's shop, John Holt & Company, under which Holt's would supply all materials to undertake the business and accommodation and provisions for Willis and his family, and Willis would supply the labour, working alongside two slaves. Whilst working for Holt & Company Willis undertook some work on a wagon belonging to George Kernodle. Subsequently Holt & Company and Willis ended their agreement to work together, and Holt's mounted an action against Kernodle for payment for the work done on the wagon. At the trial, Kernodle deposed that the work which Willis undertook on his wagon at the premises of Holt & Company had been agreed on two years earlier under a private contract with Willis, before the agreement between Willis and Holt's. His offer of Willis as a witness for the existence of this contract was objected to by the plaintiffs on the grounds that Willis was a partner with them in Holt & Company. Kernodle then contended that if Willis was a partner he should be a party to the action, and moved for a nonsuit. The court rejected this, but instructed the jury that if they found that Willis, under his agreement with Holt's, had been entitled to a share of the gross profit of the business, then he was a partner, and as such would be a necessary party to the suit. If, however, they found that the agreement between Willis and Holt's was such that the costs of materials and of Willis's board and lodging were to paid out of revenue before Willis received any money, then he was not a partner and not a necessary party to the suit, and moreover that that this would entitle the plaintiffs to recover from Kernodle. The court found for the plaintiffs, and Kernodle appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that the distinction made by the lower court as to the circumstances under which Willis was to be considered a partner were fallacious; that he was beyond doubt a partner; and that he was therefore necessarily a plaintiff in any lawsuit the firm might mount. New trial ordered.
|
|---|