Henshel v. Held

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henshel v. Held

13 A.D.2d 771, 216 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10598

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 29, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 13 A.D.2d 771 (Henshel v. Held) 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

Henshel v. Held, 13 A.D.2d 771, 216 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on March 27,1961, which denied defendant’s motion for a direction that the plaintiff bring in additional parties defendants as indispensable parties, unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. This plaintiff and three others, including the defendant, embarked upon a joint venture. The plaintiff, claiming that the defendant in breach of his duty acquired secret profits from or as a result of the venture, seeks to impress a trust upon the proceeds and asks damages. The defendant’s motion that the plaintiff be required to join the other parties to the joint venture as indispensable parties was denied. “ The test of indispensability is such legal unity of interest or joint connection with relation to the subject matter that a separate action involving less than all such persons should be precluded * * * The guiding principle is whether the absentees have such interest in the subject matter before the court that their interests must necessarily be passed on if the controversy is to be settled, or whether a determination in their absence will nevertheless have the element of finality for the protection of those before the court.” (China Sugar Co. v. Andersen, Meyer & Co., 6 Misc 2d 184, 185.) The rights, duties and obligations of the parties and the missing eoadventurers spring from a single agreement. The assumption that a separate allocation of interest may be made independently of the rights of the nonjoined eoadventurers is untenable for their interests cannot be disassociated from that of the parties before us. Nor can the controversy be effectively resolved in their absence. While the plaintiff is seeking relief in his own behalf, it is clear that if there is to be an effective determination of the controversy the presence of the other parties to the joint venture is indispensable for their rights must necessarily be fixed and determined in the action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 193.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order entered on March 27,1961, which denied defendant’s motion for a direction that the plaintiff bring in additional parties defendants as indispensable parties, unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. This plaintiff and three others, including the defendant, embarked upon a joint venture. The plaintiff, claiming that the defendant in breach of his duty acquired secret profits from or as a result of the venture, seeks to impress a trust upon the proceeds and asks damages. The defendant’s motion that the plaintiff be required to join the other parties to the joint venture as indispensable parties was denied. “ The test of indispensability is such legal unity of interest or joint connection with relation to the subject matter that a separate action involving less than all such persons should be precluded * * * The guiding principle is whether the absentees have such interest in the subject matter before the court that their interests must necessarily be passed on if the controversy is to be settled, or whether a determination in their absence will nevertheless have the element of finality for the protection of those before the court.” (China Sugar Co. v. Andersen, Meyer & Co., 6 Misc 2d 184, 185.) The rights, duties and obligations of the parties and the missing eoadventurers spring from a single agreement. The assumption that a separate allocation of interest may be made independently of the rights of the nonjoined eoadventurers is untenable for their interests cannot be disassociated from that of the parties before us. Nor can the controversy be effectively resolved in their absence. While the plaintiff is seeking relief in his own behalf, it is clear that if there is to be an effective determination of the controversy the presence of the other parties to the joint venture is indispensable for their rights must necessarily be fixed and determined in the action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 193.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 771, 216 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henshel-v-held-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack