Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 La. 314

St. Victor v. Daubert

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided April 15, 1836

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1836-04-15

APPEAL PROM THE PARISH COURT POR THE PARISH AND CITY OF • NEW-ORLEANS. The plaintiff alleges that the late firm of Durel and St. Victor established a grocery store in the lower faubourg of New-Orleans, and employed the defendant, at a salary of fifty dollars per month, to attend to its concerns, and the sale of the goods.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1859

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1836-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Marlin, J.

¶1delivered the-opinion of the court.

¶2The plaintiff -and another person being partners in trade, established a store and engaged the defendant at a salary of fifty dollars per month, to attend to the business of the store and sale of the goods, and further promised him one fourth part .of the profits that-might be made.

¶3The plaintiff afterwards purchased the interest of. his *317co-partner, and finding the concern unprofitable, shut up the store, after having made a sale of the goods on hand. The defendant was charged with the collection of the debts. After having collected the sum of one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight dollars, the defendant retained it on the ground that he had a right to do so, until the plaintiff accounted to him and paid over his share of the profits.

Between the partners of a commercial firm and a clerk, who in addition to his monthly salary, is to receive a share of the profits, there is no partnership created.A clerk who is allowed a monthly salary and a share of üie profits, is not thereby constituted a part-Si ''"the0™™ farther than the express or implied consent authorise himTSSo, clerk, share of the pro-cM°pitnS*ipj lvho, collects funds of the firm, cannot rep^etene™ ""that tl.ieJ’ ®r? his share oi the profits. He may be and'required™) ti)us“'|ceeiyg¿1™ him.

¶4The present suit was instituted to recover the sum thus remaining in the hands of the defendant.

¶5The plaintiff’s demand is resisted, on an allegation that the parties were co-partners, and neither of them could sue the other, except for a settlement and recovery of the balance.

¶6The Parish Court dismissed the suit as premature, and the plaintiff appealed.

¶7Whether a participation in the profits of a commercial house creates a liability to the creditors of the concern, and to what extent or amount, is a question which this case does hot appear to present.

¶8Between the partners of a commercial house and a clerk who, in addition to his monthly salary, is allowed, as a further •stimulus to his industry, a share of the profits, we have no . i i * m i . hesitation in deciding, that this allowance does not constitute him a partner. It gives him no additional control over the ■affairs of the partnership, nor does it authorise him to bind the 11 ‘house, or firm, further than by the express consent of the partners, or an implied consent resulting from the nature of his employment.

¶9The person thus employed and rewarded, has no right to ■retain the funds of the house, which employed him to collect them. They must be supposed, until the affairs of the part- : p ’ . r ■nership are liquidated, to be provided for, and required to meet •its engagements, and afterwards to reimburse the partners for their advances, before a division of the profits .is made. J 1

¶10it is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Parish Court be annulled, avoided and ■reversed, and the cause remanded for new proceedings, the appellee paying the costs of the appeal.

/9/la/314 · .json · Public domain