Case ID: ny_227/html/0626-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cornelius D. Curnen, Respondent, v. John J. Ryan, Defendant, and the International Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Corporation, Appellant.
    
      Curnen v. Ryan, 187 App. Div. 6, affirmed.
    (Argued November 17, 1919;
    decided December 2, 1919.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a .judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 31, 1919, affirming-a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The action was in equity to impress a trust upon a certain contract entered into between the defendant International Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Corporation and the United States Government and for an accounting.
    The following questions were certified:
    “1. Did the plaintiff, by the contract with Ryan, executed December 11, 1916, acquire any -interest in the contract entered into by the International Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Corporation and the Navy Department of the United States Government on the 3d day of May, 1917?
    
      “ 2. Upon the facts set forth in the findings herein, did the plaintiff clothe Ryan, who sold the award to the International Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Corporation for the ten submarine chasers, with apparent authority to dispose of such award?
    
      “ 3. Upon the facts set forth in the findings herein, were plaintiff and Ryan joint adventurers, so that the International Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Corporation, found by the Special Term to be a purchaser in good faith without notice and for value of the award, acquired this award free from all claims of the plaintiff?
    
      “ 4. Upon the facts set forth in the findings herein, was the plaintiff in any way estopped from claiming any interest in the submarine chaser contract? ”
    
      E. Crosby Kindleberger and Hamilton Rogers for appellant.
    
      E. W. Hofstatter and Frank Comesky for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs. First question certified not answered; second, third and fourth questions answered in the negative; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.