This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Sweet (P) as a youngster began working for Charles Vohland as an hourly employee in a nursery operated by Charles. In 1963, Charles retired, and Paul Vohland (D) started Vohland's nursery. At that time, P's status changed. P was to get a 20% share of the net profit of the enterprise after all expenses were paid. No partnership returns were ever filed, and a schedule C was used, and P's share was listed as a commission and D also filed a schedule C-3 for self-employment social security. D handled all the operations of the business and borrowed money solely in his own name. P managed the physical aspects of the nursery and supervised the care of the nursery stock and performance of contracts with customers. Evidence presented at trial was contradictory, and P showed evidence that the cost of growing the nursery stock was deducted from profits before his 20% was given to him. P also introduced evidence that the current nursery stock was worth in excess of $284,000 with all inventory exceeding $293,000. P claimed that he was due his share of this inventory as it was paid from with his share of the profits. D testified that the inventory was depleted in 1963 but that it was essentially the same and that all P was doing was merely replacing the depleted inventory. P also testified about verbal assurances between the two as well as his demanding that his name be on the title to a truck. P testified that he intended to enter into a partnership with D. D denied this testimony. There was no contention that P had every made any capital contributions. The dispute was whether this arrangement created a partnership. The trial court gave the judgment to P and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.