Case Name: E. Martin Black, Appellant, v. William K. Vanderbilt and Edward V. W. Rossiter, as Trustees for E. Martin Black, Respondents, Impleaded with Francis D. Carley, as Trustee for E. Martin Black
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-03
Citations: 70 A.D. 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: E. Martin Black, Appellant, v. William K. Vanderbilt and Edward V. W. Rossiter, as Trustees for E. Martin Black, Respondents, Impleaded with Francis D. Carley, as Trustee for E. Martin Black.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 16–26

Head Matter:
E. Martin Black, Appellant, v. William K. Vanderbilt and Edward V. W. Rossiter, as Trustees for E. Martin Black, Respondents, Impleaded with Francis D. Carley, as Trustee for E. Martin Black.
A complaint framed in equity—when demurred to, it will not he sustained on the theory that the facts stated will sustain an action at law.
The complaint in an action alleged that the plaintiff was the editor and manager of a newspaper, and that in consideration of services to be rendered by the plaintiff, through the medium of his newspaper, in enhancing the value of the stock of a railroad company, the defendants agreed to set apart for the benefit of the plaintiff 500 shares of the stock of such company and to place such '500 shares, together with other shares owned and controlled by them, in a pool to be formed for the purpose of manipulating the price of said stock; that the agreement provided that if the undertaking should result in a loss, such loss should be borne by the defendants, while if a-profit resulted therefrom, the said defendants were, upon demand of said plaintiff, to account for and pay over to said plaintiff the profit. that would be and become due to him on account of the shares so set apart for him up to and at the time such demand was made.”
It was further alleged that the pool was formed and that the plaintiff performed his part of the agreement, and that by reason thereof said stock “rose rapidly in value and large profits accrued in favor of the defendants and said plaintiff, and said plaintiff thereafter demanded of the defendants that they account for and pay over to him his share of such profits, as represented by the 500 shares aforesaid; that said trust is still open and the accounts of said trustees have not been settled or adjusted, or the amount due said plaintiff under said trust agreement ascertained.” .
It was further alleged that the .defendants allowed one of their number, who was insolvent, to manage the stock in the pool, including the 500 shares held for. the plaintiff, and also “that said defendants during the pendency of this action are doing, and procuring to be done, various acts in violation of the said plaintiff’s rights respecting said five hundred shares of stock and the profits already, or to be derived from the sale thereof, which tend to render any judgment which may be recovered herein ineffectual; that said plaintiff has a substantial interest in said shares of stock and the profits already, or to be derived from the sale thereof, now in the possession or under the control of said defendants, as such trustees, and there is danger that such stock or the profits already, or to be derived from the sale thereof, will be removed by said defendants beyond the jurisdiction of said court, or will be lost, materially injured and destroyed.”
The complaint demanded as relief that an accounting be had and that the defendants pay over to the plaintiff any and all sums of money or profits found to be due him thereon; that the defendant be restrained; pendente lite, from disposing of the 500 shares of stock, if still in their possession or under their control, and any and all sums of money or profits due said plaintiff under the terms of said agreement; that a receiver of such 500 shares of stock or, if ¡said shares have been sold, of the profits derived by the defendants “as such trustees ” from the sale be appointed, and that the plaintiff have such other and further relief as might be just and equitable.
The plaintiff’s counsel stated in his brief that “the amended complaint states a good cause of action for equitable relief, and upon the allegations contained in the amended complaint the plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action for an accounting.”
Seld, that the complaint was demurrable;
That it did not state a cause of action for equitable relief and that, as equitable relief alone was demanded and no answer had been interposed, the court would not sustain the complaint on the theory that the facts stated therein entitled the plaintiff to legal redress.
Iaughlin, J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff, E. Martin Black, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, William K. Vanderbilt and another, as trustees for E. Martin Black, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 21st day of May, 1901, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, sustaining the said defendants’ demurrer to the complaint.
The complaint herein is as follows:
“ I. That the plaintiff now is, and at all times since the year 1887 has been, the editor and manager of a newspaper known as The Wall Street Daily News.
“II. That in or about the.-years 1897-1898 the said defendants entered into an agreement with said plaintiff, which agreement was in part in writing and in part oral, wherein and whereby they, the said defendants, for and in consideration of the services of the plaintiff, as hereinafter mentioned, agreed to and did set apart, as the propérty of and for the benefit of said plaintiff, five hundred shares of the common capital stock of the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company, of the par value of $100 per share, which said five hundred shares they, the said defendants, placed with other like shares of the capital stock of the said railroad company, owned by them and others, and controlled by them, for the purpose of forming a pool or combination of said stock and dealing in or manipulating the price of the same on the New York Stock Exchange and elsewhere, with the view of enhancing the value of all of such shares; that it was in and by said agreement further provided that in case a loss should be incurred in such dealings or manipulation it should, so far as the said plaintiff was concerned, be borne by the defendants, while if a profit resulted therefrom the said defendants were, upon demand of said plaintiff, to account for and pay over to said plaintiff the profit that would be and become due to him on account of the shares so set apart for him up to and at the time such demand was made.
“III. That said agreement further provided that, in consideration of the terms thereof to be performed, as aforesaid, by said defendants as such trustees, said plaintiff was to perform certain work and services on request and on behalf of said defendants, in and about the enhancement of the value of said stock through the medium of . the said newspaper; that said plaintiff fully performed all the matters and things by him to be performed under said agreement.
“ IV. That after the formation by the defendants, as aforesaid, of the said pool or combination,, the market price of the shares of the said Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company, by reason of the services of the plaintiff, as aforesaid, and the dealings and manipulation, as aforesaid, rose rapidly in value, and large profits accrued in favor of the defendants and said plaintiff, and said plaintiff thereafter demanded of the defendants that they account for and pay over to him his share of such profits, as represented by the 500 shares aforesaid; that said- trust is still open and the accounts of said trustees have not been settled or adjusted, or the amount due said plaintiff under said trust agreement ascertained.
■“ V. On information and belief, that the said- defendants William K. Vanderbilt and Edward V.. W. Rossiter allowed and still allow said defendant Francis D. Carley to manage, control and manipulate said stock, including said five hundred shares held as aforesaid, for said plaintiff4 that said defendant Francis D. Carley is insolvent and unable to pay his debts, and has unpaid, outstanding judgments -against him'; that said defendants during the pendency of this action are doing, and procuring to he done, various acts in violation of the said' plaintiff’s rights respecting said five hundred shares of stock and the profits already, or to be derived from the Sale thereof; which tend to render any judgment which may--be recovered herein ineffectual; that said plaintiff has a substantial interest in said shares of stock and the profits already, or to be derived from the sale thereof, now in the possession or under the control of said defendants, as such trustees, and there is danger that such stock or the profits already, or to be derived from the sale thereof, will be removed by said defendants beyond the jurisdiction of said court, or will -be lost, materially injured and destroyed.
“ Wherefore, said plaintiff demands judgment against said defendants:
“ I. That an accounting be had of and concerning the matters and things aforesaid, and that said defendants pay over to said plaintiff any and all sums of money or profits found to be due him upon such accounting.
“ II. That said defendants and each and every of them, and the agents, brokers and employees of each and every of them, be restrained by injunction, during the pendency of this action, from' interfering with or disposing of said five hundred shares of stock, held, as aforesaid, for said plaintiff, if still in their possession or under their control, and from interfering with or disposing of any and all sums of money or profits due said plaintiff under the terms of said agreement.
“III. That a receiver be appointed of the said five hundred shares of said stock, held, as aforesaid, for said plaintiff, or if the said shares have been sold, then and in that case, of the profits derived by said defendants, as such trustees, from the sale or transfer thereof.
“ IV. That said plaintiff have such other and further relief in the premises as may be just and equitable, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.”
The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, one of the reasons assigned being that the plaintiff’s remedy, if any, is legal, and not equitable, as demanded. The court sustained the demurrer, and from the interlocutory judgment thus entered, the plaintiff appeals.
Robert L. Stanton, for the appellant.
Henry B. Anderson, for the respondents.

Opinion:
O'Brien, J.:
Reading the allegations of the complaint in the light of the prayer for relief, there can be no doubt that what the plaintiff sought was equitable relief in an equitable action. Were there any such doubt, it would be dispelled by the statement in the brief of the- plaintiff -on this appeal that " the amended complaint states a good cause of action for equitable relief, and upon the allegations contained in the amended complaint the plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action for an accounting."
It is true that in a subsequent part of the: brief is the contention that if, upon the -facts stated, the plaintiff was entitled to any redress, legal or equitable, it was error for the court to sustain the demurrer. This latter proposition for which the appellant contends has been applied in cases where an answer has been interposed and thereafter the sufficiency of the complaint was questioned. We can find, however, no authority for the proposition that where a suit is brought in equity for equitable relief, and the defendant demurs, it then becomes, the duty of the court, where the facts would not warrant equitable redress, to hold that the demurrer is bad because it might be concluded, itpon. some construction of the allegations of the complaint, that the plaintiff has stated certain facts which, disregarding all the others^ might convert the suit into an action at law. It is true that a party is not to be turned out of court merely-because he has failed to demand the precise remedy to which he is entitled,-and that he may. state in this complaint the facts upon which he relies in such a manner as to entitle him either to legal or equitable relief. But here, no legal redress is demanded, and it conclusively, appears that the complaint was framed for equitable relief alone.
In Swart v. Boughton (35 Hun, 281) it was said: " Where all of the allegations of the complaint are made for the purpose of procuring equitable relief, and where equitable relief alone is asked for, the complaint cannot be sustained for legal redress where no answer has been interposed," .That case was followed by this court in Cody v. First Nat. Bank (63 App. Div. 199); and in view, of the very full discussion there of the exact question here presented for consideration, it- is unnecessary to add to what was therein said. •
Regarding the question as settled, therefore, so far as this court, is concerned, we think that the disposition made by the Special Term in sustaining the demurrer was right. The interlocutory judgment appealed from should accordingly be affirmed, with costs, with leave, to plaintiff within twenty days to amend the complaint upon pay* ment of costs in this court and in the court below.
Van Bbunt, P. J., Pattebson and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred; Laughlin, J., dissented.