Vohland v. Sweet
Indiana Court of Appeals
433 N.E.2d 860 (1982)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Norman Sweet (plaintiff) had been an employee of Charles Vohland’s (Charles) nursery. After Charles retired in 1963, Paul Vohland (Vohland) (defendant), started Vohland’s Nursery. Sweet claimed that Vohland told him he would no longer have to “punch a time clock,” would be paid on commission, and would have an interest in the business. After that, Sweet received 20 percent of the nursery’s net profits. Sweet did not contribute any money or property to the business. Vohland filed taxes as though there was no partnership, listing Sweet’s share as a “commission” under the business’s expenses; Sweet filed his taxes as a self-employed salesman. Vohland managed the business’s finances and property. Sweet ran the operations of the nursery itself. Although there is some disagreement between Sweet and Vohland as to the details, sometime in the 1960s, the nursery’s stocks depleted. Vohland and Sweet invested the business earnings into growing the nursery’s stock in the 1970s. Vohland classified this program as an expense and did not pay Sweet his percentage of the earnings used to purchase additional stock. Sweet sued for dissolution of the partnership and an accounting. Vohland argued that he never intended to form a partnership and that Sweet was a contract employee. The court awarded Sweet $58,733, and Vohland appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Neal, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
