Herrick v. Ames

8 Bosw. 115
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedMarch 9, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 Bosw. 115 (Herrick v. Ames) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herrick v. Ames, 8 Bosw. 115 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1861).

Opinion

By the Court—Woodruff, J.

I concur fully with the referee in the principles which he has adopted in disposing of this case. The partners Ames and Barnes, had no right to engage in any other business than that of the co-partnership, nor to use the funds or credit of the firm in any manner except for the co-partnership benefit. This whole business was done in the name of the firm—the money and notes of the firm were advanced therefor; now, although then co-partners had a right to treat this as a violation of the co-partnership agreement, (if it was beyond the actual scope of the business provided for in that agreement), and to hold Ames and Barnes liable for any damages, yet they had the option to adopt the acts of Ames and Barnes, and claim a joint benefit in and share of the business so carried on with the means and credit of the firm, and have the property thereby acquired treated as copartnership property. The acts themselves, and the attempt to appropriate the business to the separate benefit of Ames and Barnes were a fraud upon the other partners, however it may be that they supposed they had a right to make such appropriation, and in that sense acted without intentional wrong. The acts were nevertheless a fraud upon the rights of the co-partners, and it is alleged that they were not discovered until after the settlement. This allegation is not denied. There is then fraud and concealment, and a discovery after the accounts are settled. This is sufficient ground for opening the settlement and directing a further accounting.

[119]*119But in the application of those principles to the facts found, an error has been committed which requires correction.

The number of tables furnished and charged to the firm at 35 cents was, (as the referee has correctly found from the accounts), 6,236 amounting at 35 cents to $2,182 60 And the number furnished and charged to the firm at 45 cents was, (as the referee has also correctly found,) 6,131; amounting at 45 cts.to, $2,758 94

[120]*120

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

Related

Hooley v. Gieve
9 Abb. N. Cas. 8 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1878)
Pomeroy v. Benton
57 Mo. 531 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Bosw. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrick-v-ames-nysuperctnyc-1861.