Case Name: MANNY v. BURKE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-09-13
Citations: 160 N.Y.S. 879
Docket Number: 
Parties: MANNY v. BURKE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 160
Pages: 879–883

Head Matter:
(174 App. Div. 654)
MANNY v. BURKE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
September 13, 1916.)
1. Partnership <@=105—Agreement to Form—Breach—Remedy.
Where a violinist and a theatrical producer made an agreement to form a copartnership in an amusement enterprise to begin September 1st, but the producer violated the agreement before such date, so that the co-partnership was never in fact formed, the violinist, for the producer’s breach of contract, could bring an action, and need not proceed as for a settlement and an accounting of partnership affairs.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. § 108; Dec. Dig. <§=>105.]
2. Contracts ,<§=332(2)—Actions fob Bbeach—Complaint.
A complaint alleging a valid contract, a readiness to perform on plaintiff’s part, a demand upon defendant for performance, the latter’s refusal, and the damages resulting therefrom, is sufficient as against demurrer, though there may be difficulty in proving plaintiff’s damages.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1621-1635, 1638-1639; Dec. Dig. <§=332(2).]
Woodward and Howard, JJ., dissenting.
©czsFor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, Albany County.
Action by J. Fred Manny against William J. Burke. From a judgment dismissing the complaint upon the pleadings, plaintiff appeals. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before KELLOGG, P. J., and LYON, HOWARD, WOODWARD, and COCHRANE, JJ.
Albert B. Wolf, of Troy, for appellant.
O’Brien, Malevinsky & Driscoll and Arthur F. Driscoll, all of New York City (Charles J. Tobin, of Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
JOHN M. KELLOGG, P.
Upon the trial the_ defendant had judgment upon the pleadings dismissing the complaint. The complaint alleges an agreement between the defendant, who "is well and favorably known as a producer and promoter of vaudeville entertainment," and the plaintiff who "possesses unique, unusual, and extraordinarj ability as a violinist and an actor, and particularly adapted for the portrayal of the character of entertainment that is about to be presented by said Mr. Burke." The agreement recited that the parties "desired to become associated together in the production and presentation of said entertainment to be provided by Mr. Burke in vaudeville, theaters, and other places of amusement," and provided that the defendant is to produce and finance the entertainment and be the general manager thereof, and provided, among other things, that the plaintiff "is to devote his entire time and best ability to the portrayal of the leading male role or rendition of such other service as Mr. Burlc'e might direct in the entertainment to be provided by said Mr. Burke in vaudeville, theaters, and other places of amusement as Mr. Burke may from time to time determine." The agreement also provided that, after the net proceeds of the entertainment repaid the money advanced by the defendant, the parties were to share equally in the profits and losses of the enterprise. Apparently the plaintiff was to receive no other compensation. The agreement was to continue for three full theatrical seasons from September 1, 1913. At the time performance was contemplated the plaintiff demanded that tire defendant fulfill and live up to his agreement, which he refused and still refuses to do, and, the complaint continues, "the plaintiff was at all times herein mentioned ready and willing to fulfill and has fulfilled and performed his part of said agreement and contract; that by reason of defendant's failure to fulfill and live up to his part of said agreement and contract, this plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $12,000," for which, with interest, he demands judgment.
That action was brought April 8, 1914. The complaint also alleged that, after the signing and delivery of the written agreement, it was agreed between the parties, as a part of the agreement on said day . entered into between the parties, that the plaintiff should receive for his compensation under said agreement the sum of $100 or more per week during the continuance of said agreement. The Special Term dismissed the complaint, apparently upon the ground that the agreement to pay the $100 a week was without consideration, and that the plaintiff could not bring an action for wrongful discharge and breach of contract, but must proceed as for a settlement and an accounting of partnership affairs.
There were no partnership affairs to be settled. The parties had made an agreement to form a copartnership to begin September 1st; but the defendant violated the agreement, and therefore the co-partnership was never in fact formed. The plaintiff's damages come from the fact that by the defendant's breach the copartnership was never entered upon and the plaintiff lost the profits which would have resulted therefrom. The plaintiff's rights come not from the copartnership business, but from the defendant's breach of the agreement to enter upon and conduct the copartnership business contemplated. The action, therefore, is to recover damages for breach of contract only. On the question of damages the complaint is not very definite; it alleges that the plaintiff has suffered $12,000 damages. Perhaps the defendant could have obtained an order requiring the complaint to be more definite upon that subject. Upon a demurrer to the complaint, the pleading must be liberally construed, and all reasonable intendments are in favor of the plaintiff. Ellsworth v. Agricultural Society, 99 App. Div. 119, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1040.
There may be difficulty in proving the plaintiff's damages, but that is no reason for dismissng his complaint. He has alleged a valid contract, and a readiness to perform on his part, and a demand upon the defendant for performance, and his refusal and the damages resulting from that refusal. The complaint is therefore sufficient as against a demurrer. If the defendant is well and favorably known as a producer and promoter of his entertainment, as he admits in the contract, evidently the copartnership agreement had value to the plaintiff, and by the breach damages would follow. It is evident the plaintiff is not seeking to recover the $100 a week, as that would be a small part of the damages alleged. He seeks to recover the general damages resulting from the defendant's refusal to perform. The allegation about the $100 per week was evidently thrown in as a safeguard, but has no bearing upon the main question relied upon.
I therefore favor a reversal and a new trial, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
I,YON and COCHRANE, JJ., concur.