Case ID: ny-sup-ct_12/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daniels, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOSEPH P. FLYNN, Appellant, v. WILLIAM BISHOP, Respondent. JOSEPH P. FLYNN, Appellant, v. PETER ADAMS and WILLIAM BISHOP, Respondents.
    
      Articles of copaHnership — when may he contradicted by parol evidence.
    
    This action was brought to obtain a settlement of the affairs of two firms. By the articles of copartnership of one of them, the firm was to consist of the plaintiff and the defendant Bishop, each of them being entitled to one-half of the profits. Upon the trial defendants Bishop and Adams were allowed to testify that the firm was in reality to consist of four members, each of them being entitled to one-quarter of the profits. Held, that as two of the partners were not parties to the written agreement, they were not bound thereby; and, as they might show what the parol agreement was, in an action by them to recover their share of the profits (3 Pars, on Cont., 68, 69; Baton v. Alger, 3 Keyes, 41, 44), that the defendant Bishop was entitled to prove and establish such agreement for the purpose of showing that one-half of the money the plaintiffs ought to recover, had been so disposed of, by means of it, as to render it the property of the other two partners.
    Appeals from judgments in favor of the defendants in the above entitled actions, entered upon the reports of a referee.
    
      J. W. Feeter and Wm. A. Beach, for appellant. B. More, for respondents.
   Opinion by

Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Donohue, J., concurred.

Judgments affirmed, with costs.