Leserman v. Bernheimer

—The capital of the firm was $225,000, to which each partner contributed $75,000, under an agreement that each partner should share the profits and bear the losses equally with the others, viz.: one-third each. No time was fixed for its continuance, and November 25; 1873, Leserman elected to have the business wound up, and notice to his partners required that an account should, be taken for that purpose. This was done. An account of stock was taken and balance struck as of the 31st day of December of that year, at which time the referee finds: “It was distinctly known and understood by all the parties that the partnership was to be dissolved and wound up in pursuance of the notice already given by Leserman.” It was not, however, formally dissolved until March 13, 1874, when the following agreement was executed by the several parties, viz.:

“Agreement made and entered into this 31st day of March, 1874, by and between Isaac Bernheimer, party of the first part; Jacob Goldsmith, party of the second part,, and Simon Leserman, party of the third part,

Witnesseth: First. That it is hereby mutually agreed that the co-partnerehip heretofore existing between all of the parties hereto under the name and style of the ‘ ‘ Oléophene Oil Co.,” shall be, and the same is hereby wholly dissolved.

Second. That the said Isaac Bernheimer only shall have the power and the authority, and the same is hereby accorded and granted unto him, of taking charge of all the ■assets of the said co-partnership to collect and dispose of the same to the best advantage to compromise and settle •claims of the firm, and to pay and meet all. the obligations and debts of said co-partnership out of the said assets, and is .alone authorized to sign in liquidation.

In witness whereof, the parties to these presents have hereto set their hands and affixed their seals the day and the year first above written.

ISAAC BERNHEIMER, [l. s.] JACOB GOLDSMITH, [l. s.= SIMON LESERMAN. [l. s/

Sealed and delivered in the presence of

Wm. J. Trimble.”

It was found that Leserman had drawn out of his original •capital §10,499.67; that Bernheimer’s had increased §56,-621.39, while Goldsmith had drawn out the whole of his, and also owed the firm $897.99. After paying all the liabilities of the firm there remained, according to the report, '§128.920 in the hands of the liquidating partner. This sum is carried to the capital account, and whether its disposition by the referee is correct presents the first important inquiry.

The interest of each partner in the partnership property is his share in the surplus after the partnership accounts are settled and all just claims satisfied. In this case, by the terms of the partnership, the partners were to contribute equally, and to divide profits and share losses equally from the beginning of the partnership to its dissolution. There is no evidence which requires or would permit any finding that this arrangement had been changed, nor are we referred to such finding.

It would seem to follow that the division of profits and charge of losses should be in the proportion of one-third of each to each partner. To carry out that mode of adjustment as the one provided by the agreement of the parties, the advances made by either partner beyond the capital called for by that agreement, should be treated as a debt due from the firm and paid out of the surplus before any division is made upon the partnership capital. If that advance was not in strictness to be regarded as a debt during

Nor is the rule opposed to the authorities cited by the respondent.

Story, in speaking of the rights of partners, says (Partnership, 348-348 a.): “In taking the account between them upon an ordinary dissolution, each becomes chargeable with all the debts and claims which he owes to the partnership, and if any partner has made advances to the firm, and others have received advances from it, these do not constitute debts until the concern is wound up,” and Richardson v. Bank of England (4 Mylne & Craig, 165), is to the same effect. That was a suit by the representatives of one partner, deceased, to have a general account taken •of all the partnership dealings and transactions, and to have its affairs finally wound up and closed.' The situation of the various partners as to advances and over-drafts was much like the relative position of the partners in the case before us. One of the defendant’s co-partners had overdrawn, and upon motion that he be required to pay back the sum in question, it was denied upon the ground that until the accounts of the firm had been settled and the joint debts paid, what may have been advanced by one partner or received by another, can only constitute items in the account. From both authorities it is clear that after the amount of profit and loss had been ascertained, the partner advancing might have his remedy, and the party who had overdrawn be subject to liability. Before dissolution and an accounting, the one who had advanced money could not compel payment by suit against the firm, for he was one of the firm, and so one of the parties owing the money. After dissolution and before account taken and payment of debts due to others, he could not enforce payment, for the dissolution worked no change in his position. But after these events happened he became entitled to be paid the sum advanced before the moneys contributed to the firm were returned to the contributors.

Bernheimer was a contributor to capital; he was also in .advance of that contribution, and the sum advanced must

The learned referee has not dealt with the appellant Bernheimer in accordance with these rules. He gives him one-third only of the surplus by reason of his original capital, and in accordance with the same theory the learned referee give’s one other third of the surplus to Leserman and the remaining third to Goldsmith. This method would be well enough if the surplus was sufficient to pay all. But it is not, and, moreover, the advance made by Bernheimer is left entirely unpaid. To cover it, therefore, the sum advanced is divided into three parts; and Bernheimer is given a judgment against Leserman for $18,875.72, or one-third, a judgment against Goldsmith for a like amount, or one-third, leaving him to bear a certain loss as to the remaining third, and imposing on him the risks of collection as against Goldsmith. We think this result is inequitable and not required by any rule or principal of law.

The sum advanced by Bernheimer over his $75,000, should, be first paid from the partnership surplus, and the residue divided among the partners, according to the partnership agreement. Of course, Goldsmith, having drawn out his whole capital, could be entitled to no part of the surplus, and Leserman’s share would be diminished by reason of the sum already drawn by him. The losses entailed upon the firm by reason of Goldsmith’s overdrafts" of capital or otherwise, must of course be borne equally.

Second. We are, also, of the opinion that the learned referee erred in charging upon Bernheimer as liquidating-partner, the amounts credited to Goldsmith between the first of January and the 13th of March, 1874. The latter date was the day when, by deliberate and formal act, in writing,the dissolution was agreed upon and made effective. The letters of Leserman and the negotiations of the parties-concerning it were before that inconclusive. It _ was then only that Bernheimer was empowered to act as liquidating partner, and at that time he “took exclusive charge” in that capacity, and continued as such in possession and control of the effects of the firm. Before that event occurred he had no other authority than that of one of three copartners, and it did not exceed that of Goldsmith, for whose acts he is now made responsible. Bach partner was equally competent.

Concerning it the finding of the referee, is: “ That on the 31st day of December, 1873, without consultation with the plaintiff, Simon Leserman, and without advising him thereof, but after consultation with Jacob Goldsmith, an item of $3,000, which amount had been paid out of the moneys of the copartnership in May, 1869, on account of said Jacob Goldsmith, and had since that time been carried

“ That by this credit of $3,000 to Jacob Goldsmith so made, a balance in favor of Goldsmith on capital account was forced, amounting to $2,103.01, and without such credit he would appear on December 31, 1883, as debtor upon his capital account to the amount of $897.99.

“ That said action was done without the approval, consent or knowledge of said Simbn Leserman.” And against the balance so found, payments have been made.

It is, however, apparent, that the thing complained of was only the final and natural act of a series which originated in 1869, when confessedly each partner had equal authority, and of which act each partner by virtue of his relation to the others, must be charged with knowledge. But the objection to the item and the finding of the referee stand upon the assumption that the firm was, in fact, dissolved, when the item of $3,000 went upon the books, and credit was given to Goldsmith on account of it. That assumption, we think, was erroneous. He was still a member of the firm, and, as such, competent to draw the check on which the money was paid.

Third. We are of opinion that in adjusting the capital accounts between the partners, interest should have been allowed upon the balances standing to their credit down to the 13th of March, 1874, which we are constrained to find was the time of actual dissolution of the firm.

Fourth. The remaining questions relate to the disallowance of expenses growing out of an action in favor of “ The Combined Patents Can Company,” and payment made to Goldsmith for services in defense of that action. The defense was commenced on the 11th of December, 1875, by the employment by the firm of counsel, and it continued, as the referee finds, until October, 1876, when the cause of action was settled by compromise, although it appears that counsel in the case were dispensed with, and discontinuance of the suit directed as early as June 10, 1875.' (1) As to the expenses: The suit was in equity in the circuit court of the United States, and the bill of complaint charged that Bernheimer, Leserman and Goldsmith were co-partners, and as such transacted business under the firm name of “ The ■Oleophene Oil Company,” and in the course of that business infringed certain patents owned or controlled by the plaintiffs therein. An injunction was asked for, and damages. The evidence shows that the case was of importance, and the counsel employed therein testified to its gravity. As to that, and the apprehended results, no question is made. On the Oth of October, 1876, “ The Oleophene Oil Company,” a corporation which by purchase had succeeded the firm,

It is apparent that the suit grew out of the conduct of the firm in its proper business. A recovery would have involved the defendants in their partnership character, and in the absence of any special agreement to the contrary, we are unable to see why the items disbursed by either member of the firm in that litigation and for its benefit should not have entered into the partnership accounts, to be settled in the usual way.

The learned referee finds in regard to this matter that the release and settlement of the action was brought about in part by the agreement of Isaac Bernheimer and Jacob Goldsmith not to carry on, the oil business for twenty years, and the transfer of the stock in trade and the personal property of “ The Oleophene Oil Company,” incorporated, to “The Devoe Manufacturing Company,” for $155,000, paid to Bernheimer and Goldsmith, no part of" which is brought into this accounting. For that reason he-is disallowed the expenses of the suit.

In view of other facts found and the uncontradicted' evidence, this reason seems to us insufficient. It appears[1] that after Leserman decided to retire from business, Bernheimer and Goldsmith and one Simon Bernheimer concluded to form a company, under the laws of the state, to carry on the same business as that of “ The Oleophene Oil Company.” They intended to alter and make additions to-the works at the manufactory, with a view to the more-rapid production of oil and the making of cans for its reception, and began to carry out this purpose by contracts., in their own name as early as December, 1873.

On the 13th of March, 1871, Bernheimer, the liquidating partner, leased to Simon Bernheimer the property and works of the firm at an annual rent of $15,750, with an option to Simon to purchase that and other property within a certain time at the price of $225,000. This was with the-knowledge, and by the approval of Simon Leserman, but there is no evidence that he knew, as the fact was, that, the lease and agreement were really for the company intended to be incorporated, nor that Bernheimer and Gold

The property sold was the property of the firm and sold as such; it was accounted for as such, and the plaintiff had the benefit of his share of it. If at the time he approved of those sales he was in ignorance that his former- copartners were benefited by and interested in them, he was not kept in ignorance, but during the process of accounting, the fact was disclosed, and he might then have rejected the adjustment of the accounts upon the basis of the price received, and shared with his former associates the profit, if any, made by them, or repudiating the sale altogether, held the liquidating partner responsible for the value of the property as it might be proven. He did neither.

Indeed the conduct of his co-partners cannot be considered as in any respect to his prejudice. He did not intend to go on in business there or elsewhere. He was intending to retire absolutely. The property was to be sold, and unless an advantage was taken by the other parties, and for their benefit, by reason of their situation, there was no ground for complaint. It does not seem to have been so intended. But, however that may be, he had in due season full knowledge of the whole matter. He had personally approved of the sales, without knowing indeed of the intent of his former partners; he knew of the sum realized, and before accepting his share of it, was informed that both Bernheimer and Goldsmith occupied in part the position of purchasers; were members of the company. Having after this notice concluded to treat those sales as valid, his ratification relates back to the time of their original making, and validates them from that time. They were all consummated before 1875, and the defendants were under no obligation to answer concerning the disposition of the same property made in 1876. Neither the avails nor benefits of it, could in any reasonable view be required from the defendants. Their failure to bring them in, therefore, furnishes no reason for disallowing the expenses of the suit, for which it is plain the co-partners were to some extent

For the errors above adverted to, and to enable the views above expressed to be carried out, the judgment of the court below, and that entered against Bernheimer, upon the report of the referee, should be reversed and a new trial-granted, with costs to abide the event.

All concur, except Earl and Peckham, JJ., who agree, as to power of liquidating partner to employ Goldsmith for a compensation to be paid to him.