Case ID: nj-eq_5/html/0229-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chancellor,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN L. McKNIGHT v. VANROOM ROBBINS.
    A and B entered into an agreement that A should furnish 2700 peach trees at his expense, and that B should plant and cultivate them on his farm, a* his expense, and should pick and market the fruit, during the life of the trees, at the joint expense of the parties, and account to A for half the net proceeds of the sales. The trees were furnished and planted and cultivated accordingly. A died, and the administrator of his estate sold his interest to D Held that D could come into this court for the performance of the agreement, and for an account and payment of half the net proceeds of the sale.
    In April, 1841, Richard Jaques and Van room Robbins entered into an agreement that Jaques should furnish 2700 peach trees at his own expense, and that Robbins should plant and cultivate them on his farm at his expense, and should pick and market the fruit at the joint expense of the parties to the agreement, and account to Jaques for half the net proceeds of the sales. Jaques procured the trees, and Robbins planted and cultivated them according to the terms of the agreement.
    In February, 1842, Jaques died, intestate, and in July, 1842, the administrator of his estate, sold the interest which Jaques had in the peach orchard, to John L. McKnight.
    
      On the 11th of July, 1843, McKnight filed his bill, stating the agreement, and his purchase of Jaques’ interest; that the orchard then contained a crop of the value of at least $1000, which would be fit for market about the 1st of August, thereafter.
    The bill then states that Robbins is in slender circumstances, &c., and prays that he may be enjoined from picking and marketing the fruit, and that a fit person be appointed by the court to do it, for the benefit of the complainant and defendant.
    On the 19th July, 1843, the Chancellor ordered that Robbins give bond, with security, in $1000, conditioned to pick and market the growing fruit in a judicious manner, and keep a true account of the proceeds, and of the expenses of picking and marketing, and pay half the net proceeds according to the order of the court thereafter to be made, and that the said bond be delivered to the complainant, and that all further equity and directions be reserved.
    On the same day the complainant was permitted to amend his bill, by adding a prayer for the specific performance of the agreement; and that the defendant account for the net proceeds of the fruit, from year to year, and pay over half thereof to the complainant.
    On the 14th of February, 1844, the defendant put in his answer. A replication was filed, and testimony taken.
    On the 19th of July, 1844, the defendant was ordered to give bond, with surety, in $3000, conditioned for the proper picking and marketing the fruit then growing, and in other respects similar to the first bond required from the defendant.
    The cause was heard on the pleadings and proofs, in September, 1845.
    
      S. G. Potts and P. D. Vroom, for complainant.
    They cited 1 Harr. Rep. 81; 1 Chitt. Gen. Prac. 84, 6, 7; 9 Barn, and Cresw. 561; 17 Eng. Com. Law 443; 1 Meriv. 563; 15 Vesey 221; 12 Eng. Cond. Ch. 228; 5 1 bid. 383; 1 Paige 398; 17 John. Rep. 529; 12 Wend. 134; 23 Ibid. 606, 610; 24 Ibid. 389; 6 Halst. 184; 1 Campb. 331; 1 Harr. 38; Gow on Partnerships; Collins on Partnerships.
    
    
      
      Wm. N. Jeffers, contra,
    
    cited 13 Petersd. 102; 2 Harrison's Dig. 1554, 6; 18 Vesey 300; 6 Mad. 145; 19 Vesey 291; 1 Swanst. 114, 116; 11 Vesey 3; 17 John. Rep. 529.
   The Chancellor,

after stating the ease, decided that the complainant was entitled to an account, and payment of half the net proceeds that had come to the hands of Robbins from the sales of the fruit; and ordered a reference to take the account.