Silverstein v. Wolf, 22.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1930
• Docket Number: No. 22.,22.
• Citation: 151 A. 482
• Parties: SILVERSTEIN v. WOLF.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

151 A. 482

SILVERSTEIN

v. WOLF.

No. 22.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Oct. 20, 1930.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by Israel Silverstein against Paul Wolf. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The opinion of Vice Chancellor Backes in the court below was as follows:

L1] The Court: The existence of a copartnership, it seems to me, cannot be fairly questioned. The dozen and more merchants who testified to the admissions of the defendant of his partnership relations with the complainant and of their dealings with the two as partners, powerfully supports the complainant's claim of a copartnership. The defendant admits much that tends to that view, but says that the partnership was tentative, conditioned upon complainant contributing $25,000 capital.

They are mechanics; the complainant a carpenter, the defendant a mason. Each had engaged in building operations. The complainant made the approach, and they joined forces in the spring of 1923. During the four years that followed they built four apartment houses, one in East Orange and three in Newark. They contracted for another in Red Bank, and took other jobs in their line. Their first purchase was a lot in East Orange, bought of one Tepper for $12,000 on a cash payment of $1,000, or $1,500, and a mortgage for the balance. Each paid his share. The contract ran to the complainant, but the title was taken in the name of the defendant's company, National Realty & Construction Company, under which he had been operating and of which he held one share, his wife the balance. It was boom time in real estate; money was plenty, bonuses were large, and lenders rash—with other people's cash. The scheme of operation was this: A contract by the complainant, as builder, with the company, to build for a fancied price was put on record. Fictitious, it had the appearance of bona fides and established credit for mortgage loans. The two jointly, as partners, bargained with material houses, and, with loans on mortgage and materials on credit, they finished the first building, for which they readily found a buyer, at a profit. The net in cash was over $16,000, shown by the defendant's account rendered the complainant. The second and third and fourth lots were bought and buildings put upon them with partnership profits of those previously sold. The fourth remains unsold, and the defendant has possession and claims it as his own. He says that the complainant was only a workman at a weekly wage, and that the arrangement was not to be a copartnership until the complainant produced $25,000, and, as I understand him, upon that event the partnership was to come into existence automatically and to relate to the beginning of the combination; and he brings his daughter to corroborate him. I have no confidence in either. All the circumstances point to a partnership. The complainant gave four years of time and labor, supervising the structures. True he drew wages; but so did the defendant. That was the arrangement. If he was merely an employee, why the four contracts by him with the defendant's company to build the apartment houses? Why his numerous notes to the company and many checks? Dealings of that kind are not usually those of employee and employer. The defendant claims...