Silberman v. Angert
Citation | 138 A. 529 |
Parties | SILBERMAN v. ANGERT. |
Decision Date | 18 August 1927 |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill for an accounting by Joseph F. Silberman against Louis Angert. Decree dismissing bill.
Samuel Dreskin, of Newark, for complainant.
Pomerehne, Laible & Kautz, of Newark, for defendant.
CHURCH, Vice Chancellor. This is a bill for an accounting of profits derived from the sale of real estate under a verbal agreement.
The elements necessary to create a general partnership are lacking. There was no partnership name, no stationery of the alleged partnership, no joint office, and no joint bank account.
It appears, however, that the parties did in a few instances enter into and complete joint ventures. This, however, does not in itself establish a partnership. The act concerning partnerships (chapter 212, Laws of 1919, part 2, § 7, arts. 2 and 3, at page 483, says:
Paragraph 2: "Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership, does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property."
Paragraph 3: "The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived."
The deal in question is at best a joint venture, and the evidence indicates that while contemplated it was never concluded.
Moreover, in Grant v. Steenland Construction Co., 99 N. J. Eq. 82, 132 A. 850, Vice Chancellor Baches said, at page 85 (132 A. 851):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mianulli v. Gunagan
...Construction Co., 99 N.J.Eq. 82, 132 A. 850 (Ch.1926), affirmed 100 N.J.Eq. 566, 135 A. 917 (E. & A.1927); Silberman v. Angert, 101 N.J.Eq. 477, 138 A. 529 (Ch.1927); DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.Div.1952), affirmed 21 N.J.Super. 356, 91 A.2d 272 We surmise that in t......
-
National Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford
...a matter of law they support either of the alternative conclusions stated above. See N.J.S.A. 42:1--29, 33, 35. See Silberman v. Angert, 101 N.J.Eq. 477, 138 A. 529 (Ch.1927); Lang v. Hexter, 137 N.J.Eq. 100, 43 A.2d 690 (Ch. 1945), affirmed 138 N.J.Eq. 478, 48 A.2d 918 (E. & A.1946). Plain......
-
De Marco v. Estlow, C--1945
...Construction Co., 99 N.J.Eq. 82, 132 A. 850 (Ch.1926), affirmed 100 N.J.Eq. 566, 135 A. 917 (E. & A. 1926), and Silberman v. Angert, 101 N.J.Eq. 477, 138 A. 529 (Ch.1927). See also 42 A.L.R., pages 62--75; 135 A.L.R., pages The plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to give rise to ......
- Campbell v. Champion