Case Name: Albert London, Respondent, v. Louis Meryash, Appellant, Impleaded with Rebecca Meryash, His Wife, and Others
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-05-21
Citations: 132 A.D. 323
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albert London, Respondent, v. Louis Meryash, Appellant, Impleaded with Rebecca Meryash, His Wife, and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 323–326

Head Matter:
Albert London, Respondent, v. Louis Meryash, Appellant, Impleaded with Rebecca Meryash, His Wife, and Others.
First Department,
May 21, 1909.
Practice — reference on partnership accounting — interlocutory judgment prerequisite — procedure where pleadings show right to judgment for accounting.
In an action between partners for an accounting, a reference to hear and determine the issues cannot be ordered prior to the entry of an interlocutory judgment for an accounting.
This is true, although the parties have entered into an agreement dissolving the partnership.
It seems, that if the parties are entitled to an interlocutory judgment for an accounting upon the pleadings, such judgment may be entered upon motion.
Scott, J., dissented, with memorandum.
Appeal by the defendant, Louis Meryash, from an order of the •Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 24th day of March, 1909, appointing a referee herein, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 31st day of March, 1909, appointing a second referee because of the inability of the one first appointed to act.
Edward W. S. Johnston, for the appellant.
Abram I. Elkus, for the respondent.

Opinion:
McLaughlin, J.:
Plaintiff and defendant were copartners and on the 20th of March, 190.7, entered into an agreement dissolving the partnership. This action is brought for an accounting and to compel the fore closure of a mortgage given by the defendant and the cancellation of a mortgage given by the plaintiff to a trustee' pursuant to the agreement. After issue had been joined the plaintiff, against the objection of the defendant, obtained an order referring the issues. Defendant appeals and the plaintiff seeks to sustain the order upon the ground' that the right to an accounting is admitted by the answer and that no issues of fact are raised independent of the status of the account between the parties.
Assuming, without deciding, that this is so, the order cannot be sustained. The proper practice in such case was pointed! out by this court in Gibson v. Widman (106 App. Div. 388) where it was said: " This action being for an accounting, a reference to hear and determine the .issues cannot be ordered prior' to the entry of an interlocutory judgment providing for an accounting. If the parties are entitled to such an interlocutory judgment upon the pleadings, that relief can bo granted by- motion ánd a proper interlocutory judgment entered. An accounting may then be taken before a referee."
The order appealed from must, therefore, be reversed, with. ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied,, with ten dollars costs.. . . .
Ingraham and Clarke, JJ., concurred; Scott, J., dissented.