"A partnership is * * a combination by two or more persons of capital, labor, or skill, for the purpose of business for their common benefit." Kelley v. Bourne, 15 Or. 476 ( 16 P. 40). See, also, Willis v. Crawford, 38 Or. 522 ( 63 P. 985, 64 P. 866, 53 L.R.A. 904); Hanthorn v. Quinn, 42 Or. 1 ( 69 P. 817).
But, conceding that resort should be had to the law relating to grants of real estate for the purpose of defining and construing rights secured under letters patent for an invention, we do not find that under that law the patent is void because the grant of an exclusive right has been made to a co-partnership. In Kelley v. Bourne, 15 Or. 476, 484, 16 P. 40, it was held that a deed conveying real estate to a partnership by its firm name, if ineffectual to transfer the legal title, was valid and binding as a contract, and created an equitable estate in the land described. In Dunlap v. Green, 8 C.C.A. 600, 60 F. 242, the action was trespass to try title.
Id. While the facts in this paragraph are taken from the State court's opinion, the Court notes that these facts are repeated by the State in closing argument, which is in the record [Doc. 30-16 p. 40-65]. Sergeant Williams stated that at the time of the November 10 interview, Underwood had an injury behind his ear, on the knuckle of his right index finger, and another on the joint near his thumb [Doc. 30-15 p. 40-43].
In the testimony to which the Plaintiffs cite, Mr. Stilz was answering a question posed by Plaintiffs' counsel about a hypothetical closure at a hypothetical facility; immediately prior to that hypothetical, Mr. Stilz testified that he did not know whether such a decision had been made for Johnson Controls, and that those decisions are not made until the facility and the agency conclude whether clean closure will be possible. [DE 294-16 p. 40-42]. The Plaintiffs attempt to defend their misrepresentation by arguing that other evidence, in combination with Mr. Stilz's testimony, supports the conclusion that Johnson Controls will have to remediate the groundwater to the maximum contaminant level.
Those are deemed the earmarks of a partnership. Cogswell v. Wilson, 11 Or. 371; Kelley v. Bourne, 15 Or. 476; Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Or. 132; Hansen v. Bogan, 127 Or. 399, 272 P. 668; First National Bank of Eugene v. Williams, supra. We proceed to a consideration of these three factors individually.