From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of California
May 24, 1918
178 Cal. 302 (Cal. 1918)

Opinion

L. A. No. 4189. Department Two.

May 24, 1918.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John S. Mitchell, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Hindman Yakey, for Appellant.

G.C. De Garmo, for Respondent.


This is an action to recover upon a fire insurance policy upon a stock of goods destroyed by fire. The question raised is whether or not there was an assignment of an interest in the property by plaintiff to one Stewart, or such a change of possession as would prevent plaintiff recovering under the terms of the policy. The court found that plaintiff owned the property. The evidence is that he purchased the store and paid therefor, and installed Stewart as his agent and employee in charge thereof, permitting Stewart to conduct the business in the latter's name as owner, under an agreement by which Stewart was to receive $125 a month and was to be given a half interest in the business as soon as the profits amounted to two thousand dollars (the estimated value of a half interest in the business). This was an agreement of employment, by which the employee was to be paid upon the basis of a stated salary and a proportion of the profits. He was not to share in the losses and his ownership in the business was contingent upon the profits amounting to enough to purchase a half interest therein. The finding of the court that Brown owned the property is supported by the evidence.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Melvin, J., and Victor E. Shaw, J., pro tem., concurred.


Summaries of

Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of California
May 24, 1918
178 Cal. 302 (Cal. 1918)
Case details for

Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:E. M. BROWN, Respondent, v. FRANKLIN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: May 24, 1918

Citations

178 Cal. 302 (Cal. 1918)
173 P. 403

Citing Cases

Kurihara v. Detroit Fire and Marine Insurance Company

The question is not an open one in this state. It was directly decided against the appellants' contention in…

Ætna Ins. v. Murray

Such a profit-sharing arrangement does not give the employees any title to the properties of the employer.…