Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Peter B. Amory, Assignee, etc., Respondent, v. Loftus Wood, Appellant, 1873 — 51 N.Y. 644 · caselaw · US
General
Peter B. Amory, Assignee, etc., Respondent, v. Loftus Wood, Appellant
51 N.Y. 644·New York Commission of Appeals·1873·NY
All concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Peter B. Amory, Assignee, etc., Respondent, v. Loftus Wood, Appellant.
(Argued May 17, 1872;
decided January term, 1873.)
This action was for an accounting. In January, 1843, Packard, plaintiff’s assignor, and defendant entered into an agreement, by which the latter entered into the employment of the former as clerk, and was to receive as salary one-half the net profits of the business. In 1845, by another agreement, one O. Berry was employed in the business; he to receive for his services one-third of the net profits. In 1847, without the knowledge of Packard, defendant bought out ail of Berry’s interest in the concern, past and prospective; and it was agreed that Berry’s compensation should be ten dollars per week. The books, however; were kept as before, and, in form, Berry was credited with the one-third. Held that, as to the profits accrued at the time of the purchase of Berry, defendant was entitled to Berry’s one-third. But as to the prospective profits, the párchase must be deemed for the benefit of the concern; that Packard, equally with defendant, was entitled to all advantages therefrom ; and that, in ascertaining the former’s share of the net profits, the latter could only charge in the expense account the sums actually paid Berry for his services.
Lucien Birdseye for the appellant.
Samuel Hand for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Hunt, C.,]
Hunt, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.