Boice v. Jones

Citations

• 106 A.D. 547
• 94 N.Y.S. 896
• 1905 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2624

Syllabus

<p>Judgment—when a reversal as to one defendant necessitates a reversal as to the other —status of parties to a joint adventure — a recovery on proof of a joint adventure is not proper where the complaint alleges a general copartnership — concealment of a benefit by one using his influence to further a consolidation—to whom he is liable to account — when a payment of a suni equal to a ceo'tain percentage of the profits of an undertaking is merely a measure of compensation.</p> <p>Upon an appeal by the defendant Jones from the interlocutory judgment considered in the syllabus of the opinion in Boice v. MaOormick (ante, p. 539; it was'</p> <p>Held, that the erronous decision that McCormick had no interest in the stock in question and was not liable to account therefor required the reversal of the judgment as to Jones, for the reason that as the firm of Jones & McCormick owned the one-half interest in the stock for which Jones had been required, by the interlocutory judgment to account, the said firm, and not Jones individually, should make the accounting.</p> <p>The parties to a joint venture may or may not be partners inter sese, but where property is invested or money is- expended, and where property in which .parties are jointly interested is received under such circumstances that an accounting is necessary to enable the rights of the parties to be adjusted, a suit in equity will lie to obtain such an accounting.</p> <p>Where a defendant is brought into court under allegations of a general partnership existing between him and the plaintiff, a recovery by the plaintiff should not be permitted upon proof that the relation existing between the parties was that of a joint venture and not a partnership.</p> <p>The fact that a mill owner, after entering into a contract whereby he was to share in the profits arising from the consolidation of a, large number of mills into a single corporation, while concealing the fact of such contract from his fellow-mill owners, used his