Hoeft

The action was brought for a partial accounting of an alleged partnership in the proceeds of a certain shipment of chrome ore made in June, 1918.

Plaintiff’s claim of the partnership relation was based upon the asserted execution of the following written instrument:

The cause was tried with a jury, and their finding was in favor of defendant generally, and also specially that no such agreement of partnership was made.

Two points are urged by appellant—one, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, and, second, that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence over the objection of appellant.

As to the first, it is surprising that it should be seriously urged. The defendant testified positively that he never signed said written instrument or entered into any such partnership. We cannot say from the record that he did not tell the truth, and his testimony is, of course, legally sufficient to support the finding of the jury. It is not disputed that plaintiff’s whole cause of action was predicated upon the theory that said writing was signed by both parties, and having found upon sufficient evidence that said purported agreement was not so executed, the jury…