Chapman v. Dwyer, 260.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1930
• Docket Number: No. 260.,260.
• Citation: 40 F.2d 468
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. DWYER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

40 F.2d 468 (1930)

CHAPMAN v. DWYER.

No. 260.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 7, 1930.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John J. Cunneen, of New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Grover C. Sniffen, of New York City (William M. Cannon, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Unless the parties were engaged in a joint venture in the Pennsyl Case, the plaintiff's remedy is not in equity but at law to collect whatever may be due him for services rendered and expenses incurred.

Although the legal significance of joint adventure has come to be widely recognized, it was unknown to the common law, and does not readily admit of short and satisfactory definition. Joint adventurers assume a fiduciary relationship in a single undertaking for profit which gives equity jurisdiction over controversies arising between them concerning the subject-matter as if they were in a technical partnership, Spier v. Hyde, 92 App. Div. 467, 87 N. Y. S. 285; Kraemer v. World Wide Trading Co., 195 App. Div 305, 187 N. Y. S. 16; Braddock v. Hinchman, 78 N. J. Eq. 270, 79 A. 419; but a joint adventurer is not limited to an accounting in equity. He may also sue at law. Joring v. Harriss (C. C. A.) 292 F. 974-978.

These parties undertook to find the Pennsyl heirs as a preliminary to any settlement of the estate. They exchanged information and advice in furtherance of the project. Neither knew where the heirs were, when or how they could be found, if found at all, or which of them, if either, would be successful in the search. They had no express agreement covering what each should do or how the fee should be divided if any fee was eventually obtained. In this search Dwyer was the one who happened to be successful in finding the heirs. They became his clients. While there was no fee or profit to be derived directly from this part of the enterprise, it was so necessary to the ultimate success through settlement of the estate that the search for the heirs was an integral part of the entire business and so undertaken for profit. Thus we have in this respect these characteristics of a joint venture, in that the parties combined their skill and knowledge, with each contributing his own expenses, to obtain clients to represent for profit. When Dwyer had secured the clients, he, with no help from Chapman, did the legal work necessary in settling the estate and obtaining the fee which made the preliminary work worth while; yet Chapman never withdrew from the business and always stood ready and willing to do what he could to help. That Dwyer neither requested him, or gave him an opportunity, to assist did not change his status at all, for there was no particular thing he was bound to do which he refused or failed to perform. That their relationship was not a partnership is apparent, but that this affair was a joint venture is not equally clear.

Were it enough that each should help or be willing to help without compensation except from the proceeds of the undertaking, there would be no difficulty. That much may be fairly implied from the correspondence between them. But parties who assist each other in doing a piece of work are not clothed with the legal quality of joint adventurers so simply. If they were, it would be necessary only for two or more to work together in a common attempt to accomplish some profitable result and make their pay in some way dependent in whole or in part upon their success....