New-York tribune., 1871-05-01
SALE OF A CONTINGENT INTEREsT-A REFEREES
DECISION REVERSED.

In the Summer of 1863, Herman Schultlng, a
cloth merchant Wiamst, sold 10 ii. & A. SurSburg
his entire stock OF goods for s-25,OOO. OF this amount
sls 900 to he devoted TO the payment OF his debts
and the remaining $4,000 to be paid to him, III per-
SOIL Oct l. The goods were to he sold by stursburg
Co.. and the profit realized above $4,000 was to be
divided between them and schultng, they receiving two
thirds and he onethird of the amount The sale netted
$5769sl Sc, thus leaving surplus Of s3095l &C. which,
divided according TO the contract would give Schulting
$l006G9 g. and StnrsDuTg 20 +l f ~ ~ &, ~ tou,
what the goods would sell for Herman Won Keller pro,
s.are in the surplus for $4,000. Schulting con
sened and Won Keller addressed letter to stnrsurs
and charge it to his (VOn Kcllersl account. On the
game day Saturday, August s., sehultng sent item
similar letter. On the Monday following Schutng rc-
pudiated his contract and demanded back his letter
Won Keller insisted upon its enforcement, and brought
suit to recover the 0Dcird of The surplus wblcrhe hd
contracted for The rc'crred TO James Emott
who found among other findings that the plantn won
at once il he wished it, and sclultng answered that ne
did not want the money at once ana that II ne % e1u
burg & Co 1t would be satisfactory to nm; ana llt
therefore the letters addressed to StursbuS Co. were
signed" The referee, accordingly gave Judgment Tor
the plaintiff in sl0O,GGO GO. 1-,
An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court General
Trrm and after argument before the full bench, the
Judgment bcen reversed and the order OF reference
vacated. Judge Barnard in rendering the opinion oi
Al the paper. eferng the tor signed AMI de-
co were not niebed to Won Keller plaintiff Keller
%G %G IN ad % sI a1 bas af % up & %%" 5os 81 r % he %o
thew Schung. These letters signed
on SATURDAY. the 8 Of August AZ early hour oa Monday the 10Th
plaintiff sud Herman Sshug together to the store where The
goods Schung them there and Immediately dsnanded
the papers above set h Won Keller the pan1n, never
raid offered 10 pay the $1,000 SlufsiGrg 20
never gave Schutng the credit for that and nothing
whatever done to pIoie what the plaintiff In BIS
object had IN yeS when Won Meier
To OF The
the language Of the complaint Herman
the third interest the profits ths
the a Of said merchandise snd being dsIou TO sell
and thus realize certain for Interest the yalne H
and agreed = sell &c Turing the week
following Saturday 9Th Of August Schug demanded Of Sunbrg
this +2O0 did It and then demanded to know
Sursburg Co had placed TO his credit this OGO and they tod him
no. goods had yet been sold Sclung had not received aIy
fng whatever credit 5nd unable 10 get either
remained until tie lSth Of August when Schuing
received from Surury Co. tle which
and shove the SR5 900 aounei 10
and the orders judgment in favor Of the panah Tor
the whole amount OF said ore leaving the StOeO entirely unpaid
unprOyied for and s Transaction the part Of the nn ny
which he parted with ahug placed Sehuiing position
obtained shng credit the referee anes
entities this large In my opinion the Judgment hoad be
reversed trial granted with TO abide The event aud Tie
order OF reference vacated
Judge CaTdozO in his opinion says
schung d2 Law suit for tho transfer of his
property liability the Of persons he recognized
their their books
with fO0; Won Keller 70 be DONE but
liable TO Schung certainly
not 10 definite for which sehaug
willing o part with biz property
Presiding Justice Ingraham concurs.