A contract whereby one of the contracting parties is to have an interest in profits alone in insufficient to establish a contract of partnership. See Falk v. LaGrange Cigar Co., 15 Ga. App. 564 ( 84 S.E. 93); Allgood v. Feckoury, 36 Ga. App. 42 ( 135 S.E. 314); Beard v. Oliver, 52 Ga. App. 229 ( 182 S.E. 921); Hannifin v. Wolpert, 56 Ga. App. 466 ( 193 S.E. 81); Lanier v. Shuman, 195 Ga. 246 ( 24 S.E.2d 55). In holding that the contracts do not establish a partnership relation, we do not preclude a different result should the evidence upon a trial of the issues made authorize, or require, a jury to find that a partnership actually existed between the contracting parties.
The application of these principles to proceeds of a life insurance policy assigned to secure payment of a debt on which the period of limitation has run at the time of insured's death is the present problem. The following are the only decisions on the question to be decided which our research has produced: These authorities support the rule that the assignee is entitled to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy assigned as collateral even though his debt to the insured assignor is barred by limitation: Charlotte Nat. Bank v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. (1936), 210 N.C. 140, 185 S.E. 648, 650; Pollock's Adm'r v. Smith (1900), 107 Ky. 509, 54 S.W. 740, 741; Conway v. Caswell (1904), 121 Ga. 254, 48 S.E. 956, 958; Hill v. Bush (1936), 192 Ark. 181, 90 S.W.2d 490, 493; Lanier v. Shuman (1943), 195 Ga. 245, 24 S.E.2d 55, 58; Potter Title Trust Co. v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. (1944) 156 Pa. Super. 1, 39 A.2d 268, 270; 2A Appleman, Insurance (1966) Sec. 1313, p. 530; 83 A.L.R. 80; 160 A.L.R. 1393; Couch, Insurance 2d (1967), Sec. 63.459, p. 127; First Nat. Bank v. Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1920), 283 Mo. 336, 222 S.W. 832. See De Long's Adm'r v. Arnold (1947), 306 Ky. 290, 206 S.W.2d 928.