Harlow v. La Brum

• Decision Date: 19 January 1897
• Citation: 151 N.Y. 278,45 N.E. 859
• Parties: HARLOW v. LA BRUM.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

151 N.Y. 278

45 N.E. 859

HARLOW

v.LA BRUM.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 19, 1897.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Third department.

Action by Frederick S. Harlow against Hiram La Brum to dissolve a partnership. From a judgment of the general term, Third department (31 N. Y. Supp. 487), affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

James W. Verbeck, for appellant.

Edgar T. Brackett, for respondent.

PRAY, J.

The plaintiff brought this action for the dissolution of a co-partnership between the parties, and for an accounting. After the commencement of the action, the defendant discovered that a fraud had been practiced upon him, through which he had been induced to enter into the co-partnership. It consisted in fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff as to the cost of a certain stock of merchandise, which he put into the co-partnership, and the half of which, as represented, the defendant had paid in compliance with his co-partnership agreement. He thereupon interposed an answer setting up the fraud of the plaintiff, and asking judgment to the effect that there had never existed any partnership between the parties; that the agreement of partnership be set aside; and that the plaintiff be decreed to restore to him the consideration which he had paid on entering into the co-partnership. Upon trial of the issues, the court found that the representations made by the plaintiff to the defendant as to the cost of the stock of merchandise in question were false, and were made to induce the defendant to enter into the co-partnership agreement; that they were known by the plaintiff to be false when he made them; and that the defendant relied upon and believed them, and, except for the same, would not have formed such partnership. These findings were amply supported by the evidence. Judgment was directed and entered declaring the co-partnership agreement void; directing the receiver in the action, after paying the outstanding debts of the co-partnership, to the defendant the money he had paid to the plaintiff, witb interest thereon; and directing the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant a duebill which he held for the balance of the purchase price for a half interest in the stock of merchandise. The trial court also found that the defendant had drawn out of the firm $6 a week for his living expenses, as was permitted by the articles to each party, but that the services of the defendant were worth $12 per week. Upon appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment recovered by the defendant, the general term affirmed the same, and I think nothing need be added to the very satisfactory opinion rendered at the general term upon...