Section 2 of the 1890 act provides guidelines to assist with the how to determine when the law will deem a partnership to exist. The first guideline describes that joint tenancy, tenancy in common, joint property, common ownership or part ownership does not of itself create a partnership. Whether the tenants or owners do or do not share any profits made by the use thereof. This principle was illustrated in the case of Sharpe v Carswell 1910 where Carswell argued because Sharpe held share in the fishing boat, he was a partner and not an employee. It was held that mere ownership of shares did not render the deceased as a partner and Sharpe successfully proved her entitlement to compensation under the act. The reason for this decision arose from the judgement made by Lord Guthrie and raised the question whether the decision in the English case of Ellis 1905 could be applied in Scotland, in view of the difference between the Scots and the English law of partnership. In the Elis case, there was a partnership; it was held that a partner could not recover compensation if they became injured at work as they would not be consider a worker. In Scotland a firm is a separate persona , and holding that in that case a shareholder of a company doing work for the company is not in the position of employer and employed, does not equally apply in Scotland to the case of a proper partnership. But that question does not arise here, because I concur in the view that, on the facts of the present case, no partnership existed between the deceased and the other joint owners of the ship. Here we can see that the courts looked at the interpretation of law in a different way based on their own jurisdiction. What the law deems as a partnership differs from what the law sees it in England.