Rockafellow v. Miller
| Decision Date | 13 December 1887 |
| Citation | 107 N.Y. 507,14 N.E. 433 |
| Parties | ROCKAFELLOW v. MILLER et al. BANKS v. SAME. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from general term, city court of Brooklyn.
This is an action brought by Emily Rockafellow against Samuel H. Miller and John C. Cook to set aside an assignment from Miller to Cook for the benefit of Miller's creditors. On the trial at special term, judgment of dismissal was rendered in favor of defendants. This judgment was affirmed by the general term, and plaintiff appealed.
Frank J. Dupignac, for plaintiff.
Frederick G. Dow, for defendants.
The plaintiff, claiming to be a creditor of Samuel H. Miller and Jesse E. Folk, after service of the summons on the defendant Folk, recovered judgment against them as joint debtors in the sum of $1,064.48. Execution issued against the joint property of Miller and Folk, and the individual property of Folk was returned nulla bona. This action was then brought by the plaintiff, as such judgment creditor, against Miller and one John C. Cook. Its object was to set aside an assignment made by Miller to Cook as assignee, for the benefit of Miller's creditors. The case was tried at special term, and judgment of dismissal ordered in favor of the defendants. The conclusion of the trial judge upon the evidencewas satisfactory to the general term, and an examination of the record discloses no finding that is not supported by testimony. We have only to see whether, upon these findings, any error was committed by the trial judge in his conclusion of law.
It appears that on the first of January, 1873, the defendant Miller and one Eastmead formed a partnership, under the firm name of Miller & Eastmead, to commence at that time, and terminate on the thirty-first of December, 1877. The profits of the business were to be divided equally. It was agreed between Eastmead and Folk that Folk should receive such share of the profits of the business of Miller & Eastmead as should accrue to Eastmead, leaving it to the discretion of Folk as to the portion which Eastmead should retain; such portion, however, not to be less than one-fifth. This arrangement between Eastmead & Folk was assented to by Miller, upon condition that the agreement should in no respect conflict with the conditions or terms of copartnership between himself and Eastmead, or in any respect invalidate or prejudice the rights secured by the copartnership articles. Folk did not become a partner in said firm, nor did either...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchel v. Bowers, 22.
...37 Am. Rep. 527. The result is no different when the other partners in the firm know and assent to the arrangement. Rockafellow v. Miller, 107 N. Y. 507, 14 N. E. 433. It is only when the subpartner acquires some interest in the firm assets as such that he may sue the partners for an accoun......
-
Burnet v. Leininger
...Bank v. Carrollton Railroad, supra; Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119, 124, 25 L. Ed. 370; Burnett v. Snyder, supra; Rockafellow v. Miller, 107 N. Y. 507, 510, 14 N. E. 433; Mitchel v. Bowers (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2D) 287, 288; Cohan v. Commissioner, supra; Harris v. Commissioner (C. C. A.) 39 F.......
-
Henningsen v. Barnard
...and not liable for partnership liabilities even under the old law, Burnett v. Snyder, 76 N.Y. 344; Id., 81 N.Y. 550; Rockafellow v. Miller, 107 N.Y. 507, 14 N.E. 433. If he is considered to be directly entitled to profit from the partnership because David in part represented him as an undis......
-
Harris v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 8614
...profits ultimately come to her, come not from the partnership but from the petitioner. Burnett v. Snyder, supra; Rockafellow v. Miller, 107 N. Y. 507; 14 N. E. 433. Mrs. Harris did not sign the instrument and it is open to question whether she could be held responsible for losses that might......