Flint v. Flint

• Decision Date: 11 April 1917
• Citation: 87 N.J.Eq. 560,100 A. 754
• Parties: FLINT et al. v. FLINT et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

100 A. 754

87 N.J.Eq. 560

FLINT et al.

v. FLINT et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

April 11, 1917.

Bill by Russell A. Flint and others against Myron E. Flint and others. Motion to strike out bill. Granted.

Burnett, Cornish & Sorg, of Newark (D. Frederick Burnett, of Newark, of counsel), for the motion. Borden D. Whiting, of Newark, opposed.

LANE, V. C. This is a bill filed by the heirs at law of Walter A. Flint, deceased (one of them Is an infant) for the partition of certain property alleged to be real estate of a partnership which was composed of the deceased, Walter, and his brother Myron E. Flint, one of the defendants. The business of the partnership was the retail dealing in butter, eggs, poultry, and dairy products. In 1908 or thereabouts it caused land and premises mentioned in the bill which were and are admittedly (if there is any other inference to be drawn from the bill, the situation was made clear at the hearing) the sole property of the defendant Myron E. Flint to be improved at an expenditure of some $9,000, by the erection of a cement and concrete office and storage building, stable and wagon shed with roadway. The entire cost of the improvements was paid out of partnership funds, and the improvements were used for partnership purposes until the dissolution of the firm by the death of Walter A. Flint. Lottie E. Flint, his wife, one of the defendants, was appointed administratrix, and on July 2, 1914, she individually and as administratrix entered into an agreement with Myron E. Flint for the sale to him of all of her and the estate's interest in the assets of the partnership, for the sum of $14,000. This sum represented approximately one-half of the net assets of the partnership, including the value of the improvements. The sum was paid and a bill of sale delivered. The debts of the property have been paid and the value of the improvements will not be needed to meet any of the obligations of the partnership. The complainants, heirs at law of the deceased partner, now claim that the improvements were and are real estate, and as such their value, not being necessary for the payment of partnership debts, descended to them as heirs at law of the deceased partner, and that the agreement and bill of sale are ineffective as against them. The technical situation which would exist, if the complainants' position be sound, is that the legal title of the soil will be in the defendant Myron Flint. The defendant Myron Flint will also have a half interest in the improvements. Each complainant will have a one-fourth interest in the improvements. The bill asks partition and other relief. The petition of the defendant Myron Flint is that whatever right the partnership had in the improvements was from the beginning, and continued to be, so far as the partnership and the individual parties are concerned, personalty. Passing the question which arises upon the face of the bill whether, it appearing that the legal title is in dispute, there can be partition until the title is settled, which was not raised on the motion to strike out in any way, I will consider the merits. County Homes Land Co. v. De Gray, 71 N. J. Eq. 283, 71 Atl. 340. The bill prays for other relief, and it may well be argued that any relief that could be granted must, by reason of the relationship of the parties, be in this court.

The law is well settled that partnership real estate, not necessary for the payment of partnership debts, descends to...