Hamill v. Hamill

Crain, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. The record in this case discloses the fact that about the 20th of August, 1864, William J. Hamill, the son of the appellant, deserted his lawful wife, and six infant children, and fled with his paramour to Europe. It does not appear that he authorized or empowered any one to take charge of his property, for the purpose of protecting and preserving it. The appellee, deserted and abandoned by her husband, filed her bill in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, which she obtained, and the Court appointed a receiver to take possession of tlio property of the husband.

The receiver, after executing his bond, proceeded to take charge of all the property of W. J. Hamill, including an oil refining establishment at the corner of Eden street and Canton avenue. The appellant, at this stage of the case, filed his petition in the cause, alleging that he was a partner of his son W. J. Hamill in carrying on the coal oil refining business, and asking to be made a party ⁶⁸⁶ “ defendant in the case, to enable him fully and properly to represent his interest in the matter.” Upon the filing of the answer of the appellee, denying the allegations of the petitioner, a commission, by consent, was issued, to take testimony, and a large mass of evidence was taken to prove and disprove the co-partnership. At the hearing of the petition, the Judge of the Circuit Court dismissed the petition, on the ground that there was no evidence to.establish affirmatively the co-partnership as alleged by him. This Court is now called on to adjudicate a question of fact, and to determine whether the Judge was justified, from the evidence in the cause, in dismissing the petition of the appellant, on the ground that he had failed to prove, affirmatively, the co-partnership of his son and himself, as alleged in his petition.

From our examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that the appellant and W. J. Hamill entered into a co-partnership in 1861, as alleged by Alexander Hamill. In this opinion we do not deem it necessary to state in' detail all the testimony taken in the cause. It must be conceded', as it was clearly proved, that the property was jointly leased by them for carrying on the coal oil refining business, and that it was