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.
Cuyler Garrett, Jr., Respondent, v. Frank E. Scheffer, Appellant, 1872 — 47 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Cuyler Garrett, Jr., Respondent, v. Frank E. Scheffer, Appellant
47 N.Y. 656·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
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
Cuyler Garrett, Jr., Respondent, v. Frank E. Scheffer, Appellant.
(Argued December 21, 1871;
decided January 16, 1872.)
Action for accounting between partners. Defendant and one McW. had formerly been in partnership. A portion of the partnership assets consisted of certain real estate. This partnership was dissolved, defendant purchasing McW.’s interest. Plaintiff and defendant then formed a partnership under a parol agreement that plaintiff was to take the same interest McW. had, paying defendant therefor what he paid McW. The latter conveyed the real estate to defendant. The referee in this action charged defendant with one-half the value of the real estate. Defendant alleged error, that plaintiff never acquired any interest therein, the agreement being by parol. Held, that as between the partners in closing their accounts the real estate may be regarded as equitable assets; at least that the court would decree a specific performance, as there was sufficient part performance by payment and entry under the partnership to take the case out of the statute of frauds.
N. Morey for appellant.
W. B. Donihee for respondent;
[MAJORITY — Peckham, J.,]
Peckham, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur. Judgment affirmed.