Case ID: nys_9/html/0946-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dattelbaum, Respondent, v. Blume, Appellant.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    May 12, 1890.)
    Appeal from special term, Kings county.
    Action by Charles Dattelbaum for the dissolution of a partnership existing between him and defendants, William Blume, Frank Rottenberg, and Henry Wunderlich. Defendant Blume appeals from the final judgment, and also from the interlocutory judgment entered in the action.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J„ and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
    
      Phillips & Avery, for appellant. Thornton, Earle & Kiendl, for respondent.
   Dykman, J.

This action was commenced to procure the dissolution of a copartnership, and an adjustment of the partnership accounts. The existence of a copartnership was put in issue by the pleadings, and that issue was referred to a referee, who found in favor of the plaintiff, and then an order of reference was made to the same referee to state and settle the accounts. That service was also performed by the referee, and a final judgment was" entered. How the defendant Blume has appealed from both the final and interlocutory judgments. The attorneys for the appellant have stipulated that there was sufficient evidence to sustain both reports of the referee, and stated that the appeal was taken upon exception only. The reliance of the appellant, therefore, is placed on the exceptions to the exclusion of testimony proposed by him. We have examined all the exceptions, and, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, they present no error. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.