43 Wn.2d 462, ALFRED B. CAVINESS, Respondent, v. FRANK ROGERS, Appellant

[No. 32392. Department One.      Supreme Court      October 9, 1953.]

ALFRED B. CAVINESS, Respondent, v. FRANK ROGERS,
                          Appellant.1

[1] PARTNERSHIP - THE RELATION - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY. In an action upon an implied contract for compensation for work and labor, defended upon the ground that the relation of partners existed between the parties, held that the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of a partnership, and that the trial court properly found against the defendant upon that issue; and, since the findings support the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, it will be affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Clark county, No. 28181, Cushing, J., entered October 23, 1952, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract, tried to the court. Affirmed.

McMullen, Snider & McMullen, for appellant.

Lyle H. Truax, for respondent.

OLSON, J. -

Plaintiff brought this action to recover upon an implied contract for compensation for work and labor performed by him upon a farm owned by defendant. His complaint was answered by a general denial. But, at the trial, by his outline of the issues, defendant informally asserted the formation of a partnership between the parties by oral agreement. Plaintiff denied this assertion and urged that, in any event, the alleged contract of partnership was

1 261 P. (2d) 406.

[1] See 40 Am. Jur. 186.

 Oct. 1953]          SATHER v. LINDAHL.           463

void under the statute of frauds, RCW 19.36.010(1) [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat., 5825(1)].

The trial court considered all of the issues submitted. It found facts in favor of plaintiff upon his cause of action for compensation for his work and labor. It further found that the minds of the parties did not meet to create a partnership.

The assignments of error are directed to the findings of fact made and refused by the trial court.

[1] No useful purpose would be served by a statement of the evidence in detail. It not only does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court, but it is insufficient to establish the existence of a partnership, under the rules stated in Bengston v. Shain, 42 Wn. (2d) 404, 409, 255 P. (2d) 892 (1953), and cases cited.

The findings support the judgment, and it must be and is affirmed.

GRADY, C. J., MALLERY, HILL, and WEAVER, JJ., concur.