Brief Fact Summary. Respondents, William Peyton et al., entered an agreement with a broker, John Hall, to loan Hall collateral to keep his business afloat. Appellant, Charles Martin, interpreted the agreement as forming a partnership.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An agreement that offers a degree of control by a first party to protect first party’s assets should not be considered a partnership if factors as a whole indicate that the other party still maintains day-to-day control of the business.
Mere words will not blind us to realities.View Full Point of Law
Issue. The issue is whether the conditions of the agreements between Respondents and Hall constituted a partnership between the two parties.
Held. The agreements did not establish a partnership. Although Respondents ensured that they had some control over the operations of Hall’s business, the controls they bargained for were to ensure that their investment was secure. Immediately prior to Respondent’s investment, Hall’s business was doing poorly due to bad decision-making and Respondents needed to prevent further bad decisions. Hall still was able to control the day-to-day affairs, and Respondents never had control to initiate their own ideas.