Stewart v. Buchanan [1903] ScotLR 41_11 (23 October 1903)

Stewart v. Buchanan [1903] ScotLR 41_11 (23 October 1903)

The Court held that Buchanan was a partner in the City Stockroom Company because the arrangements, though framed as a loan, gave him dominant control and a share of profits, making him the true owner of the business. The contract's express denial of partnership could not override the substantive relationship created. The Partnership Act 1890, section 2(3)(d), did not apply as the transaction was not a genuine loan but a disguised partnership.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 41_11
Parties
Pursuer: Robert R. Stewart; Defender: City Stockroom Company; Defender: Robert William Saunders; Defender: Charles Buchanan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 October 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil (debt Recovery) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor affirmed
Legal Topics
Constitution of Partnership, Proof of Partnership, Loan Versus Partnership, Liability of Partners, Interpretation of Partnership Act 1890
Commercial Law Partnership Law Constitution of Partnership Proof of Partnership Loan Versus Partnership Liability of Partners Interpretation of Partnership Act 1890

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert R. Stewart

Pursuer

City Stockroom Company

Defender

Robert William Saunders

Defender

Charles Buchanan

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (debt Recovery) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Buchanan was a partner in the City Stockroom Company or merely a lender under the Partnership Act 1890, section 2(3)(d)
  2. 2 Whether the contractual arrangements constituted a partnership in substance despite express denial in the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Buchanan was a partner in the City Stockroom Company because the arrangements, though framed as a loan, gave him dominant control and a share of profits, making him the true owner of the business. The contract's express denial of partnership could not override the substantive relationship created. The Partnership Act 1890, section 2(3)(d), did not apply as the transaction was not a genuine loan but a disguised partnership.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor affirmed

Orders

  • Remitted to the Sheriff to decern against the defenders as craved
  • Defender Buchanan found liable in expenses in this Court