PARTNERSHIP - CONSIDERATION FOR CONTRACT - ILLUSORY PROMISE

Authors

Abstract

D and his three daughters executed an agreement whereby each was to get an undivided fourth interest in all of D's property. The business under this agreement was to be conducted on a partnership basis. It was agreed that D should have complete control of the business and the right to issue only such profit as he saw fit beyond the actual need of the daughters. A demand note was given in 1918 by each of D's daughters without interest. The notes were renewed and the majority of the court agreed that it was the intent of the parties that neither the notes nor the alleged partnership agreement was to be enforced against the will of any of the daughters. The agreement provided: "If at any time, either party of the second part are in any way dissatisfied with the way said party of the first part conducts the business, and think their interest is being impaired by such management, party of the first part agrees to return their note and take over their interest." The purpose of this agreement, as was shown by parol evidence, was D's desire to train his children in handling large sums of money, and his wish to prevent family disputes by dividing his property during his lifetime. P sued D for all of the income tax as if the business and income were solely his. Held, that the said agreement constituted a partnership within the meaning of section 218 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918 and 1921, Judge Hicks dissenting. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Olds, (C. C. A. 6th, 1932) 60 F. (2d) 252 (1932).

Recommended Citation

PARTNERSHIP - CONSIDERATION FOR CONTRACT - ILLUSORY PROMISE, 31 Mich. L. Rev. 738 (1933).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol31/iss5/24