Case Name: James N. Jarvie, Appellant, v. Christina Arbuckle et al., as Administrators of the Estate of John Arbuckle, Deceased, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-05-23
Citations: 221 N.Y. 523
Docket Number: 
Parties: James N. Jarvie, Appellant, v. Christina Arbuckle et al., as Administrators of the Estate of John Arbuckle, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
James N. Jarvie, Appellant, v. Christina Arbuckle et al., as Administrators of the Estate of John Arbuckle, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
(Argued May 7, 1917;
decided May 23, 1917.)
Jarvie v. Arbuckle, 163 App. Div. 199, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 10, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The action was brought by plaintiff, the retiring member of the firm of Arbuckle Brothers, to recover the sum of $156,087.54 which the plaintiff, after he had retired from the firm on June 1, 1906, was called upon by the continuing partners in December, 1909, to pay and which he did pay under protest, and under an agreement providing that the payment should be made without prejudice to his rights under the written agreement. It was the plaintiff’s contention at the time he made the payment that said sum represented a debt of the former firm which the respondents, the continuing partners, were obligated to assume and pay by the terms of the agreement of April 4, 1906. The agreement in question was made on April 4, 1906. The value of the plaintiff’s interest in the copartnership property, as fixed by the defendants, was fully liquidated and paid to him, with the exception of a single item which is not material on this appeal, on or before December 1, 1907. After the plaintiff’s interest had been fully liquidated and in December, 1909, the United States government asserted a claim for unpaid duties on sugar imported by the firm prior to November, 1907. It was his alleged proportion of these unpaid duties which the defendants called upon plaintiff to pay and for which recovery was sought in this action.
Lewis H. Freedman and Adrian H. Larkin for appellant.
William N. Dykman and Arthur E. Goddard for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Oh. J., Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.