Court Opinion

ID: 9862713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:56:48.243583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:08.107503
License: Public Domain

Heher, J.
(dissenting in part). I agree that the proofs do not sustain the contention that the plaintiff representative of the deceased partner consented to the continuance of the partnership business after his death. But this does not defeat her right, if she so elects, to recover the profits earned after the dissolution of the partnership fairly attributable to the use of the deceased partner’s capital in the continuance of the partnership business. If this be the representative’s right where such consent is given, and R. S. 42:1-41 and R. S. 42 :1-42 expressly so provide, then a fortiori this is so where the business is continued without consent; for it would seem that on the plainest principles of equity and justice the surviving partners should account for the profits *385ensuing from their unauthorized use of the deceased partner’s capital. The principle of unjust enrichment has peculiar application in such circumstances. It is not the capital risk that determines the right, but rather the reaping of a profit from the use of the capital.
The statutory provisions cited supra, have reference to the rights of creditors where consent is given to continue the partnership business.
I would modify the judgment in this regard also.
For affirmance—Justices Oliphant, Wachenkeld, Bur-ling, Jacobs and Brennan—5.
For modification—Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justice Heher—2.