Case Name: BOGARDUS v. REED et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-01-21
Citations: 145 N.Y.S. 597
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOGARDUS v. REED et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 145
Pages: 597–601

Head Matter:
(160 App. Div. 294)
BOGARDUS v. REED et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
January 21, 1914.)
1. Partnership (§ 5*)—The Relation. Persons, owning as heirs, devisees, and legatees a ferryboat, and the ferry docks and the lands on which they are built, having suffered the ferry business, conducted by their ancestors and testators, to continue, each receiving his share of the profits from year to year, a partnership relation exists between them.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. §§ 15, 16; Dec. Dig. § 5.*]
2. Partnership (§ 313*)—Dissolution — Sale op Property — Partition of Real Estate. Partners in a ferry business together owning the franchise, boat, and lands with the docks thereon, an action by one of them for partition of the land should proceed as one for dissolution of the partnership and sale of its assets in connection with the sale of the land, even if the land has not become partnership property, and therefore personalty; as a separate sale of the land would probably impair, if not destroy, the value of- the franchise and boat.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. §§ 679, 729, 729% ; Dec. Dig. § 313.*]
Kellogg, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Greene County.
Action by Mary Adalaide Bogardus against Stewart R. Reed and others. From a judgment of partition, defendants appeal. Reversed, with directions.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
N. A. Calkins, of Coxsackie, for appellants.
Curtis & Warren, of Coxsackie, for respondent.

Opinion:
SMITH, P. J.
The property by this judgment partitioned was originally owned by three parties, Hamilton, Smith, and O'Con-nor, who also owned a ferryboat, crossing the Hudson river. This property consists of the docks at which this ferry lands upon the two sides of the river, and appurtenant land. The parties above named have all died, and their interests in the lands and ferryboat have passed to the heirs and devisees or legatees, who have all suffered the business to continue, each receiving his share of the profits from year to year. That this constitutes a partnership cannot be doubted. This land has always been used in connection with this business. By chapter 178 of the Laws of 1886 the original owners procured a license from the state to operate this ferry. Without such a license the operation of a ferry is a misdemeanor. Penal Law, § 870 (Consol. Laws, c. 40). A license to operate the ferry can only be obtained by one who owns property through which the highway runs approaching the ferry. Highway Law, § 270 (Consol. Laws, c. 25). While the proof is not as full as might be desired, it is a fair inference, from the fact that this property has on it the docks for the landing of the ferryboats, and has always been used in connection therewith, that the property is mainly valuable for ferry purposes, and this fact is so found by the referee. In Darrow v. Calkins, 154 N. Y. 516, 49 N. E. 64, 48 L. R. A. 299, 61 Am. St. Rep. 637, in discussing whether real estate used in connection with a partnership becomes partnership assets, Judge Andrews says:
"The investment of partnership funds in lands and chattels for the purpose of a partnership business, the fact that the two species of property are, in most cases of this kind, so commingled that they cannot he separated mthout impairing the value of each, has been deemed to justify the inference that under such circumstances the lands, as well as the chattels, were intended by the parties to constitute part of the partnership stock."'
In MacFarlane v. MacFarlane, 82 Hun, 238, 31 N. Y. Supp. 272, it is held:
"The mere fact of the bequest by will, to two persons, of certain real estate, and of the business transacted by the testator thereon, does not constitute such persons partners; it merely makes them joint owners; but their election to continue the business, each contributing thereto his share of the property bequeathed to him, renders the relation between them that of copartners, and the property copartnership property."
It is not necessary, however, here to hold that this real estate has become copartnership property, and therefore personalty. This property has passed by deed and will to many divers persons, all of whom have elected to jointly continue this ferry business under this license granted by the state, and all of whom have an interest in the ferryboat and license equal to that of their interest in the land. A sale of the real estate without the franchise and the boat would probably and naturally largely impair the value of the franchise and the boat. If sold together, the «joint interests would naturally bring a much larger sum. The real estate and franchise and boat should be offered for sale separately and jointly, on the principle of an upset sale, in which case the owners would obtain the greatest value that could be obtained for all of the property. These facts seem to me to justify the court in directing such a salej and in refusing to decree that the real estate may be sold separately, thereby impairing, if not destroying, the value of the franchise and of the ferryboat.
The judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted, and the action proceed as for a dissolution of the partnership and sale of its assets in connection with the sale of this land.
Judgment is reversed in law and fact, and the action is directed to proceed as for a partnership accounting. Upon the final sale the real estate shall be offered for sale separately, and the boat and franchise under which the business is conducted. Thereafter both the real estate and the boat and franchise shall be offered together, upon the principle. of an upset sale. The fourteenth finding of fact is reversed, and this court finds that the original parties and their successors have continued, to the present time to run such ferry as copartners, and that said real estate, or the use thereof, has, at all times, been contributed to such copartnership by the owners thereof for copartnership purposes, and that a sale of said real estate apart from the ferry and franchise will be detrimental to the interests of the various owners, and that the offering for sale of the land and ferry and franchise separately and together, upon the principle of an upset sale, will be of material advantage to the owners thereof. All concur, except KELLOGG, J., dissenting in memorandum.