Hardin v. Robinson

178 A.D. 724, 162 N.Y.S. 531, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9030
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 178 A.D. 724 (Hardin v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hardin v. Robinson, 178 A.D. 724, 162 N.Y.S. 531, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Page, J.:

The action was brought by the trustees under the last will and testament of Oscar Keen, deceased, for an accounting from the defendants for the proceeds of a certain joint adventure. The contested questions of fact were largely found in favor of the plaintiffs and are briefly stated as follows:

In the month of January, 1907, Oscar Keen, Merle Middleton and George Frederick Keene associated themselves together in a joint adventure to buy and sell the Baldwin Locomotive Works, a large manufacturing plant in Philadelphia, Penn., owned by Burnham, Williams & Co., a copartnership. Some time later, but prior to July, 1908, the firm of Fisk & Robinson, bankers, of New York city, came into said joint adventure, [726]*726and, in the person of George H. Robinson, one of the members of the firm, took an active part therein. By a letter dated September 29, 1908, written by Oscar Keen to Fisk & Robinson, the terms of which were accepted by said Fisk & Robinson by a letter dated December 30, 1908, it was agreed that, in the event of there being received by either Fisk & Robinson or Oscar Keen any commission arising from the purchase and sale of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, Fisk & Robinson were to have one-half thereof, and Oscar Keen and his associates one-half thereof, in whatever the said commission should be paid, whether cash or securities. Oscar Keen further wrote to his associates, Merle Middleton and George Frederick Keene, agreeing with them as to the division between themselves. Oscar Keen personally and through Frederick J. Stimson, who had family connections with one or more of the firm of Burnham, Williams & Co., endeavored to secure, if possible, an option on the Baldwin Locomotive Works, or a price at which they would be willing to sell. These negotiations were continued during the years 1907, 1908 and until March, 1909, but without success, because the seven members of the firm of Burnham, Williams & Co. could not agree among themselves as to the sale of, or the price to be asked for, the said works.

In order to overcome these difficulties, Stimson made the suggestion to one or more members of said firm that they should be incorporated. On or about February 19, 1909, Alba B. Johnson, one of the members of said firm, with whom Oscar Keen had personal interviews and considerable correspondence, wrote to Oscar Keen that, “ after the most careful consideration of the matter, we conclude that we are not disposed at this time to entertain a proposition.” In reply to this Oscar Keen wrote to A. B. Johnson, on or about March 8, 1909, that he had had a conference with his principals, who “ regret that the matter cannot be taken up now, but trust that in the near future there may be a reconsideration of the subject, in which event I will be pleased to hear from you.” This letter was communicated to Merle Middleton, who had a desk in the office of Fisk & Robinson, on or about March 26, 1909. On or about April 8, 1909, Fisk & Robinson wrote to Oscar Keen as follows: “We beg to advise [727]*727that we had a final conference on Tuesday last in respect to the negotiations referred to in your letter under date of September 29, 1908, and it was mutually agreed to discontinue all negotiations, thus confirming the decision set forth in Mr. Johnson’s letter to you under date of February 19th. In view of the conclusion of the negotiations, the agreement as set forth in our letter under date of December 30th last is, of course, terminated.”

The “ final conference ” referred to in said letter was .a conference between the said Fisk & Robinson, Merle Middleton and George Frederick Keene, at which Oscar Keen was not present, and of which he had no notice. In answer to this letter, Oscar Keen wrote Fisk & Robinson on April 9, 1909: “I am in receipt of your letter of April 8, and was not aware that you had a final conference on Tuesday last in regard to the negotiations. If you look at the copy of Mr. Johnson’s letter of February 19, 1909, you will observe that he used these words, ‘ We conclude that we are not disposed at this time to entertain a proposition,’ implying that at some future time a proposition might be entertained. I thought that, in view of the recent death of Mr. Henszey, the future time might be approaching. Before consenting to the termination of the agreement as set forth in your letter to me of December 30, 1908, I would like to discuss the matter with you, and will soon call on you. Is there anything new in this affair?”

There is no evidence, either that' Fisk & Robinson replied to this letter, or that Oscar Keen called and discussed the matter with them. In August, 1909, the Baldwin Locomotive Works having been incorporated, Robinson and Middleton agreed to renew the negotiations for the purchase and sale of the said works on a commission basis, with the understanding, as between themselves, that, in the event of a commission resulting, one-half was to be given to Merle Middleton, out of which he was to take care of George Frederick Keene, the other half to Robinson. Oscar Keen was not present, nor invited to be present, it being the intention of the parties to the transaction to exclude him from any participation in the profits which might result from the adventure. In the month of October, 1909, negotiations were resumed by the defend[728]*728ant Robinson with Alba B. Johnson, representing all the stockholders of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, for an option upon the stock, at which it could be sold to a purchaser, whom Robinson might procure. The negotiation came.to an end temporarily in the month of May, 1910, when the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., to whom Robinson had introduced Johnson, declined to purchase the stock of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, but did finance a bond issue of $15,000,000.

Fisk & Robinson went into bankruptcy in February, 1910, and thereafter Robinson demanded and received from the Baldwin Locomotive Works $50,000, which he divided with Middleton, George Frederick Keene receiving $12,500 from Middleton. In September, 1910, an agreement was made between Robinson and Johnson that, if a sale should be made to Kuhn, Loeb & Co., certain commissions should be paid to Robinson, based upon price realized. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. made an offer, and while negotiations were pending the Baldwin Locomotive Works were sold to other parties. Robinson then brought an action against Johnson, in Philadelphia, Penn., ■ for commissions, upon the ground that he had put Johnson, as representing all the stock of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, in communication with a responsible and willing purchaser, and that there had been an agreement between them that these negotiations should be continued until they either agreed upon terms or agreed that they could not agree. Robinson recovered judgment for $125,000, which was paid to him on or about December 14, 1914. He paid for expenses of the action $32,055.75, divided $46,472.12 between himself and partners, and deposited $46,472.13 in the American Exchange National Bank, where it still remains.

The learned referee drew the legal conclusion from these facts that the joint adventure entered into between Oscar Keen, his associates, and Fisk & Robinson in December, 1908, being indefinite as to time, was a partnership at will, terminable at any time by any party thereto; that at the time the same was terminated performance thereof was impossible. For these reasons the plaintiff could not recover.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Congel v. Malfitano
101 N.E.3d 341 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 2018)
Gelman v. Buehler
986 N.E.2d 914 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)
Gelman v. Buehler
91 A.D.3d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Congel v. Malfitano
61 A.D.3d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rutecki v. S.H. Gow & Co.
289 A.D.2d 1066 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Chandler Medical Building Partners v. Chandler Dental Group
855 P.2d 787 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1993)
Framson, Inc. v. Queens Inner Unity Cable Systems
168 A.D.2d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Ebker v. Tan Jay International Ltd.
741 F. Supp. 448 (S.D. New York, 1990)
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.
90 A.D.2d 991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Opn. No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1978
68th St. Apts., Inc. v. Lauricella
362 A.2d 78 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1976)
Grand Isle Campsites, Inc. v. Cheek
262 So. 2d 350 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1972)
Pedersen v. Manitowoc Co.
255 N.E.2d 146 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
Napoli v. Domnitch
18 A.D.2d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
Napoli v. Domnitch
34 Misc. 2d 237 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Kasen v. Morrell
10 Misc. 2d 176 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
In re the City of New York
148 Misc. 488 (New York Supreme Court, 1933)
San Francisco Iron & Metal Co. v. American Milling & Industrial Co.
1 P.2d 1008 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Daily States Pub. Co. v. Uhalt
126 So. 228 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 A.D. 724, 162 N.Y.S. 531, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardin-v-robinson-nyappdiv-1916.