Snyder v. Seaman

• Decision Date: 10 January 1899
• Citation: 52 N.E. 658,157 N.Y. 449
• Parties: SNYDER v. SEAMAN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

157 N.Y. 449

52 N.E. 658

SNYDER

v.SEAMAN.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 10, 1899.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, First department.

Action by James H. Snyder against Lloyd I. Seaman. From a judgment of the appellate division (37 N. Y. Supp. 696) reversing a judgment for plaintiff and dismissing his complaint, he appeals. Reversed.

Herbert M. Lloyd, for appellant.

John W. Weed, for respondent.

HAIGHT, J.

This action was brought for an accounting. On the 1st day of May, 1885, the plaintiff and defendant entered into written articles of co-partnership for the purpose of dealing in butter, cheese, and produce, as commission merchants, which continued until the 30th day of April, 1892. At the time of the dissolution of the co-partnership a dispute arose over the personal taxes assessed against the defendant in the city of New York for the years 1885 to 1891, inclusive, which had been paid out of the co-partnership funds, and charged to store expenses. There were other matters about which the parties differed, but they were finally adjusted, so that this action was prosecuted solely for the purpose of adjusting their differences with reference to the taxes. Upon the trial the referee found that the personal taxes assessed against the defendant for the years named were paid by the firm's money, and charged on the books to store expenses, and that he was of the opinion, as he states in his decision, ‘that these taxes should not have been charged against the firm as part of the expense of carrying on the firm; that they were no part of such expenses. The defendant might as well have charged his living expenses. They were not within the spirit or the letter of the articles of co-partnership, and in fact there is no evidence that these taxes were assessed solely upon the defendant's capital employed in the business, nor can it be rightly said that the plaintiff ratified the defendant's acts. There is no consideration passing from the defendant to the plaintiff to uphold any claim of ratification. I do not think that the yearly balances that were struck can be considered as an accounting between the parties.’ For the reasons stated, he ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $576.75. Upon an appeal to the appellate division the judgment was reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. The judgment, after containing the usual recital, is as follows: ‘It is ordered that the said judgment is hereby reversed. And it appearing that the defendant has fully accounted to the plaintiff for all moneys received by him, and has not denied the plaintiff's interest in claims remaining uncollected, it is further ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant, dismissing the complaint,’ etc.

The respondent claims that this is a reversal upon the facts, and that, consequently, we have no power...