Brief Fact Summary
In 1956, Norman Sweet (plaintiff-appellee) began working for Charles Vohland - the father of Paul Vohland (defendant-appellant) - as an hourly employee. In 1963, the elder Vohland retired and Paul Vohland started Vohland's nursery and changed Sweet's status, so that Sweet was to receive a 20 percent share of the net profit of the enterprise. The evidence was somewhat contradictory regarding the operational roles and interests of the parties in the venture. Sweet received a judgment in the District Court and Vohland appeals.

Rule of Law and Holding
"[I]f, from a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, it appears that the parties intended, between themselves, that there should be a community of interest of both the property and profits of a common business or venture, the law treats it as their intention to become partners, in the absence of other controlling facts." In this case, the Court looked at the sharing of profits as prima facie evidence of a partnership. And because there was no controlling evidence that there was not a partership, the court held that the sharing of profits was evidence of the intent of a partnership and therefore held that there was a partnership.

Topics
Partnerships & Relatives

Subtopics
Formation