Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
..... , will render a party liable as a partner to third persons; but there is entire concurrence in the conclusion that such participation alone does not create a partnership between the parties. in denny v. cabot, [ footnote 2/3 ] the question presented to the supreme court of massachusetts was, whether the defendant cooper ..... the claim now asserted is contrary to the express terms of the contract, and the construction given to it by price himself. and even the administrator acted as agent for the heirs in paying taxes upon the property and in negotiating sales for them until he made the discovery of the supposed rights of ..... he uniformly treated the contract as at an end, and the heirs of seymour as the exclusive owners of the land and its proceeds. he subsequently acted as agent for them in paying taxes upon the property. he lived near the property, and it was natural that he should be employed for that ..... and that the contracts page 75 u. s. 226 for sale were made not in his name, but in that of sampson, for gill was to act as a broker only, and to receive a share of the profits in lieu of his brokerage. the money paid for the whalebone being, therefore, sampson ..... holding on for better times, but that nothing was done to release seymour or his representatives from their original obligations; that high, after price's death, had acted at agent of seymour's representatives, and effected sales; and that the original $5,000, interest &c.;, being all refunded, and the surplus being clear profits .....Tag this Judgment!