# Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. of Phila.

> California Supreme Court · May 24, 1918 · 178 Cal. 302

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3305073

## Case

- **Full name:** E. M. BROWN, Respondent, v. FRANKLIN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA (A Corporation), Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 24, 1918
- **Citations:** 178 Cal. 302; 173 P. 403; 1918 Cal. LEXIS 471
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Wilbur
- **Judges:** Wilbur
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3305073

## Opinion text

WILBUR, J.
This is an action to recover upon a fire insurance policy upon a stock of goods destroyed by fire. The question raised is whether or not there was an assignment of an interest in the property by plaintiff to one Stewart, or such a change of possession as would prevent plaintiff recovering under the terms of the policy. The court found that plaintiff owned the property. The evidence is that he purchased the store and paid therefor, and installed Stewart as his agent and employee in charge thereof, permitting Stewart to conduct the business in the latter’s name as owner, under an agreement by which Stewart was to receive $125 a month and was to be given a half interest in the business as soon as the profits amounted to two thousand dollars (the estimated value of a half interest in the business). This was an agreement of employment, by which the employee was to be paid upon the basis of a stated salary and a proportion of the profits. He was not to share in the losses and his ownership in the business was contingent upon the profits amounting to enough to purchase a half interest therein. The finding of the court that Brown owned the property is supported by the evidence.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Melvin, J., and Victor B. Shaw, J.,
pro tem.,
concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3305073. Public record. Not legal advice.