内容发布更新时间 : 2024/11/19 0:41:46星期一 下面是文章的全部内容请认真阅读。

benefits 50-50．．．． These two continued to farm the land together until Elwood’s death in 1970．There was ample evidence that Nora did the cooking， housework and a11 related chores， kept the books for the operation，did most of the banking，wrote all checks and paid all the bills，fed the livestock，sorted cattle and hogs and，at times did actual，hard farm labor．This continued through all the years．She was regularly consulted about the purchase of livestock and land；she frequently (or usually)accompanied her brother on trips for the purchase or sale of livestock，and such deals were made by agreement．The farm truck bore the legend：“Elwood＆Nora Grissum Farms—Boonville Mo．”Elwood had this placed on the truck．A sign was placed by Elwood over the harness shed bearing the [same]legend?．This was visible to anyone approaching the house from the highway．．．．Elwood Grissum told sundry people，over the years, both in the presence of Nora and out of her presence，that they were partners on a 50-50 basis．A nephew of Elwood．．．who worked with him a great deal over a period of many years， asked Elwood why they could not“go partners”；the reply was that Elwood could not do so because he already had a partner，his sister．This nephew was told at sundry times that the arrangement was a partnership；on more than one occasion he heard Nora ask Elwood when he was going to fix up the business so that she would be protected，and his answer was that they would go in and fix it up if they ever got time．In other conversations，Elwood stated on many occasions to other farmers，his doctor，and perhaps others that(in substance)he and his sister were partners in their farm enterprise“50-50，”or“all the way through，”or that they“owned the whole thing together，”or were partners in everything．Some of these statements were made on various occasions to the same individuals．One was made so as to include that real estate． Nora， at times， made Similar statements in her brother’s presence．On one occasion Elwood told his nephew that he thought Nora should“come up”with her partnership half of the work(apparently meaning farm labor)，and the nephew replied that she was doing more than her half．Elwood and Nora discussed and decided together on livestock deals and the general operation of the farm．The statements relating to the partnership extended back at least as far as the 1940s and they continued to within a very few weeks of Elwood’s death．Nora and Elwood told their banker that everything they had was a“joint venture．”All entries into the safety deposit box，except one in 1949，were made by Nora．On one occasion Elwood stated that he would have to consult Nora before buying some cattle because she was his partner；he later bought them．

A joint bank account was opened in the names of Elwood and Nora Grissum in June，1967，with a deposit of$13，128．68，proceeds of the farm operations．Prior to that time the account had been kept in the name of Elwood Grissum．The joint account was continued until Elwood’s death with all farm money deposited in it．When money was borrowed Elwood signed the notes alone．The farm insurance was applied for and issued in both names．．．from at least as early as 1957 and presumably before．It was stipulated that Elwood filed individual federal income tax returns．．．from “about” 1966 through 1969．．．．We are not advised what was done before that For the year 1970，four returns were filed：an individual return for Elwood to the time

16

of his death，a partnership return,a fiduciary return，and an individual return for Nora．The point of all this is that Elwood did，for some years prior to his death，report farm income on individual returns．We shall discuss this later．．．．

[L]and was acquired in the name of Ewood in 1937 (presumably from his father and mother)，in 1942，1946，1947，1948，and 1952．．．．It is obvious that most of these tracts were purchases made to increase the farming operation． The occupancy and operation of the farm or farms started in the depression in the 1930s，with one eighty-acre tract；at Elwood’s death the [property value]had increased to approximately $286，000．During all this period Nora had lived and worked on the farm．It is certainly true that both Elwood and Nora derived all their living expenses from the operation of the farm，for no other source of income is indicated．It also seems obvious that neither drew down any profits，as such，but that all excess went into the expansion of the farm operation and(some)beginning in January，1969，into joint certificates of deposit．．．．

[A]partnership agreement may be implied from conduct and circumstances；．．．evidence of a sharing of profits constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of a partnership and in the absence of other evidence becomes conclusive；．．．the parties are not required to know all of the legal incidents of a partnership．．．；a partnership consists of a factual relationship between two or more persons who conduct a business enterprise together．We note further that when the essentials of such an agreement have been established，expressly or by implication，it is not to be avoided because of uncertainty or indefiniteness as to minor details and，in the absence of express agreement, it will be presumed that profits are to be shared equally．．．．

The element of profits and a sharing of profits is essential．It is important to note here that although the operation was prosperous，neither party ever drew down any profits，but put all money over and above farm expenses and living expenses into additional equipment and land，until in 1967 and 1969 when they established the joint account and bought the joint certificates of deposit．The joint account recognized Nora’s interest in the farm operating-funds，and the joint certificates recognized her interest and ownership in the accumulated funds．It would appear，therefore，that Nora shared in any and all profits just as much as Elwood did，but that neither saw fit to make use of them individually．It is a fair inference that either had the right to take profits at any reasonable time．It is probable that minor losses may have occurred over the years；if so，they were taken care of out of the general funds．

We recognize that three things speak to some extent in opposition to a partnership，namely：(1)the individual income tax returns filed by Elwood；(2)the fact that title to the real estate stood in his name；and(3)that an individual bank account in Elwood’s name was maintained until 1967，although Nora drew checks upon it regularly in Elwood’s name by herself．It is generally recognized that partnership property may be held in an individual name．That element is of no great materiality．When we consider the background of these individuals，the fact that they cannot be held to have known the usual or legal requirements or incidents of

17

a partnership，and the fact that it was probably a matter of convenience to transact those certain phases of the partnership business in an individual name，we find that these things are not sufficient to prevent a conclusion that a partnership in fact existed．Certainly Nora was not an employee，for she received no wages；she was not a wife，and it was not her duty as such to perform all such services and labor．We are clearly convinced，and hold，that a partnership exited with the ownership of the property and the profits to be shared on an equal basis?．

18

19

20