Case Name: Theodore A. Liebler et al., Appellants, v. Lee Shubert, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-02-22
Citations: 217 N.Y. 654
Docket Number: 
Parties: Theodore A. Liebler et al., Appellants, v. Lee Shubert, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
Theodore A. Liebler et al., Appellants, v. Lee Shubert, Respondent.
Liebler v. Shubert, 161 App. Div. 928, affirmed.
(Argued February 2, 1916;
decided February 22, 1916.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 30, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action in equity for the dissolution of a joint venture in the production of a play and for an accounting, injunction and receiver. The complaint alleges that on or about October 17, 1910, an agreement of joint venture was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant for the production in the United States and Canada, as equal owners, of the play entitled “The Blue Bird;” that the defendant and plaintiffs acquired, by contract with the New Theatre (which owned the American rights), the right to produce the play upon the road; that the parties did produce the play under their agreement; that the same has been extremely profitable;' that the plaintiffs duly performed all the conditions of the agreement, and that the defendant has refused to pay over any part of the profits except the sum of $4,000. The answer admits the contract of joint venture, but alleges that it was entered into by the defendant on behalf of the Shubert Theatrical Company, a New York corporation, and that said Shubert Theatrical Company is a necessary and material party to the action. The answer also purports to allege certain defenses and a counterclaim.
David Leventritt, James N. Rosenberg and Max D. Josephson for appellants.
Charles H. Tuttle, Edward E. McCall and William Klein for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan and Seabury, JJ. Not sitting: Cardozo, J.