Case Name: George G. Hill and Fannie H. Hill, Respondents, v. George G. Reynolds and Others, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-05-08
Citations: 119 A.D. 689
Docket Number: 
Parties: George G. Hill and Fannie H. Hill, Respondents, v. George G. Reynolds and Others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 689–695

Head Matter:
George G. Hill and Fannie H. Hill, Respondents, v. George G. Reynolds and Others, Appellants.
Third Department,
May 8, 1907.
Reference — pleading—complaint in action. for accounting —: reference granted. .
In an action for an accounting the complaint alleged that the plaintiffs authorized the defendant to drill on the plaintiffs’ lands for natural gas; the plaintiffs to receive a proportion of the moneys received from the sale of the gas,' and that the defendant refused to account for. a large amount of gas sold. For a second cause of action it was alleged that the agreement was without consideration, unreasonable, impossible of fulfillment and void* and that the defendant took and appropriated the gas from the plaintiffs’ well without authority, and that the amount so taken or its proceeds cannot be ascertained .without an accounting. As a third cause it .was alleged that the plaintiffs were to have sole ownership, use and benefit of the wéll in question and thegas produced there- . from, and that the defendant had appropriated a certain amount of gas and refused to account therefor. ' For a fourth cause of action it was alleged that the agreement had been rescinded on account of the failure of the defendant to pay the plaintiffs their share of the money received from the sale of gas and that the defendant had since appropriated gas and failed to account.
Held, that the trial would' require the examination of a long account, and, the relations of the parties being fiduciary, á reference was proper;
. That the fact that the second cause of action might reqxiirp the determination of the rights of parties independent of the state of accounts did not deprive the court of the power to, refer.
Smith, P. J., and Cochrane, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the .defendants," George G. Reynolds and others, from an order of the' Supreme Court, made at the Schuyler Special Term and"entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schuyler on •the 19tli"day of December, 1906, referring the above-entitled action toa referee designated by said order.
The plaintiffs allege for a first cause of action that in December,. ■ 1902, they were and now are the owners of the lands described in the.complaint; that December 15,1902, .they entered into a written ■ agreement with the defendant George G. Reynolds, wherein they authorized him to drill a well for the purpose of' obtaining natural . gas, and he agreed to.give to the plaintiffs “ .One tenth part of all money received from the sale of said gas Avhicli shall be taken from said well besides gas enough from said Avell to run and operate the Sanitarium;’’ that a well was drilled; that the contract was assigned to the defendant, The Consumers’ Natural Gas Company; that a large - amount of gas was obtained and sold, and that the defendants have neglected and refused to account for the same or the proceeds thereof, or to pay the plaintiffs therefor. It was further alleged that in February, 1905, the company executed to the defendant Samuel G. H. Turner, as trustee, a mortgage to secure the payment of bonds to the amount pf §25,000, and that said mort gage purports to cover all its property rights and franchises.
The second cause of action alleges, among other things, that the agreement was without consideration, unreasonable, impossible pf fulfillment and void; that the defendants entered upon plaintiffs lands without any right or authority and took-and appropriated the • gas from plaintiffs’ well, and that the amount so taken or the" proceeds thereof cannot be ascertained without an accounting.
The third cause of action alleges another- agreement by which the plaintiffs were to have the sole OAvnership, use and benefit of the well in question and all the gas produced therefrom; that'more than 100,000,000 cubic feet of gas have been obtained and appropriated to the use of the defendants, and they have refused to account to the plaintiffs therefor. ■ -
For a fourth cause of action the plaintiffs allege that they revoked and rescinded the original agreement on the 2d day of April, 1906, on account of the failure of the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs their portion of the money received from the salepf gas, and that, notwithstanding the revocation and rescission, the defendants have since taken and appropriated the gas from plaintiffs’ Avell without right or authority, and refused to account to the plaintiffs therefor.
The relief prayed for is that the defendants account to the plaintiffs for. all the gas taken or received and for the proceeds of the sties, and that they bé adjudged to pay such sum in the premises as may be just and proper. -. . . .
The answers admit the execution of the lease; that it was assigned to the defendant company, Avliich assumed all the obligations of the -lessee; that the bonds Ayere issued, the Avell drilled, and natural gas obtained, and “ that the'-said defendants on or about the first day of October; 1904, commenced and did operate said well arid had control and possession thereof and took and. received certain quantities of gas therefrom.”
George G. Reynolds, Samuel G. H. Turner and Robert T. Turner, for the appellants.
Irving W. Cole, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Sewell, J.:
It is plain that the primary purpose of this action is to- obtain an accounting, and that the trial will require the examination of a long account as to three of the causes of action set forth in the complaint. The fact that the second cause of action may be regarded as calling for a determination of. the rights of the parties independent of the state of their accounts did not deprive the court of the power to refer. •
It has been repeatedly held -that where one count or one cause"of action requires the examination of a long account the action is referable.. (Whitaker v. Desfosse, 7 Bosw. 678; Goodyear v. Brooks, 2 Abb. Pr. [N. S.] 296, Batchelor v. Albany City Ins. Co., 6 id. 240; Place v. Chesebrough, 4 Hun, 577; Connor v. Jackson, 53 App. Div. 322.)
The entire claim of the plaintiffs could have been properly stated as a single cause of action and thus have avoided any objection on account of the division into different causes of action. •
Hilton v. Hughes (5 App. Div. 226) and Jordan v. Underhill (71 id. 559)- differ materially from the case at bar. In each of these cases the right of the plaintiff to an accounting was denied and depended upon . the - determination of other "questions. Heither is the case of C. & C. Electric Co. v. Walker Co. (35 App. Div. 426), also relied upon by the defendants, an authority upon this appeal. In that action the account was not. the immediate object of the action or directly involved,- and there was no trust or fiduciary relation between the parties. This case has all the referable qualities. The facts entitling, the plaintiffs to an accounting are substantially conceded; the account is complicated; there is need of a discovery, and by force of the contract relations of a fiduciary nature existed between the parties.
I am of the opinion that the granting of the order of reference was a matter for the exercise, of the discretion of the court, and .that the order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.- .
All concurred, except Smith, P. J., dissenting in opinion, in' which Cochrane, J., concurred.