Gilbert Innes v. Clarence J. Beauchene

NESBETT, Chief Justice. The only question to be decided is whether the trial court erred in finding that appellant was a partner in a mining enterprise with Howard Nelson and Charles Baxter. The complaint was one for wages and named appellant, Nelson and Baxter, d/b/a Swede Nelson Enterprises, as defendants. A single answer with a single allegation was filed on behalf of all defendants which denied that they were not co-partners as alleged in the complaint. The actual intent of the answer obviously was to deny the alleged partnership and admit the claim for wages. Although the pre-trial order stated that 'the defendants did not make any statement as to their respective positions', it further stated that it was admitted that plaintiff was hired by someone to do the work, that he did it and was owed $3,671.20 plus interest. The order also provided that 'It is anticipated that the only issue of law will be that involving the applicability of the Uniform Partnership Act to the facts of the case.' After trial before the court without a jury, the court found that: