Levin v. Hurwitz

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a decree dismissing the bill of complaint of appellants to' set aside a partnership' agreement between Isaac Levin, one of appellants, and Jacob Hurwitz, one of appellees, and certain deeds of property in Baltimore City conveyed by appellants to appellees, for injunctions against alienation, and for general relief. ²⁵¹ The suit is based upon fraud and misrepresentation alleged to have been practiced by Hurwitz for tbe purpose of inducing Levin to enter into, said agreement. Tbe fraud consisted in alleged misrepresentations as to tbe value of assets of Hurwitz, tbe amount of sales of milk, and tbe profits of Hurwitz from the business. Hurwitz for a number of years bad been engaged in farming and in tbe livestock business in Baltimore County.

Levin for many years was employed in the printing business in Baltimore City, and at tbe date of tbe agreement was part owner of a painting establishment. He sold out his interest in this business in order to enter into business with Hurwitz, and agreed to pay him $20,000 for1 a one-half interest therein. Of this amount $11,895 was represented hy properties' in Baltimore City conveyed to defendants by Levin and wife, and $8,105 by a note from Levin and wife to defendants. The properties conveyed had been purchased hy Levin from time to time and represented the savings of a lifetime.

The agreement wa,s that the families of the respective partners should live in one house. Levin was to look after the farming and the milk business-, and Hurwitz was to attend to the buying and selling of live stock. The agreement was signed on January 10th, 1924, and the Levins moved into the Hurwitz home about February 1st. Things did not turn out as Levin had expected, and on March 25th, 1924, Hurwitz and Levin signed an agreement purporting to he supplementary to the agreement of January 10th, hy which it was arranged to sell at public auction on April 8th, 1924, the cows, horses, mules, dairy equipment and farming implements and machinery.

The testimony is eonflictiaig as to which of the partners suggested this sale. Each claims that it was made at the urgent insistence of the other. However that may be, the results were uaisatisfactory, total sales 'being $8,311.40, and of the proceeds of sale there was left, after the payment of expenses, and of money borrowed to run the business, only a small balance, about $155 in cash and some sales notes. About two weeks after ²⁵² the sale Levin left the farm and accepted employment in the Government Printing Office in Washington, leaving the assets of the concern in the hands of Hurwitz.

These consisted of the small balance above mentioned, about 30 cows, 40 calves, 8 or 10 horses with colts, a milking machine, two separators and a mowing machine, the tenancy of two farms and the good will of the business. It would be profitless to set out the testimony in detail. Much of it is conflicting. The record covers more than four hundred pages.

It is difficult, after a careful study of the whole record, to escape the conviction that advantage was taken by Hurwitz of 'the absolute ignorance of Levin of everything relative to Hurwitz’s business, and that unwarranted representations were made by Hurwitz to induce Levin to part with his property. One can hardly imagine a man of Hurwitz’s shrewdness desiring Levin as a partner in the farming and livestock business, a man past middle age, who had never lived in the country or had any business experience except in a printing office. It is ludicrous to suppose that Hurwitz thought such a man could successfully .manage a farm or a dairy business; and yet these, together with the bookkeeping, were, according to the agreement, the things he was expected to take charge of, while Hurwitz was travelling around buying and selling stock. Again it is difficult to understand why if, as he testified, he took Levin as a partner mainly because he wanted some one to 'look after that sort of work,- in less than two months he was willing to close out every part of 'the ■business which the partner was to attend to, leaving nothing ■but Hurwitz’s own specialty.

Hor is it easy to believe that he, a stock expert, permitted himself to be overruled by one so uninformed as Levin in the matter of selecting the best time to sell, if the stock was to be disposed of. On the other hand, his course is entirely consistent with the theory that what he wanted was Levin’s $20,000, of which he had collected $11,985.00 in property, besides Levin’s note, and that ²⁵³ the sale of the stock, dairy equipment and farming implements was the easiest way to separate his partner from the "business. Apart from the circumstances, it is riot clear from the direct testimony that the plaintiffs have sustained the burden of proving more than one of the alleged fraudulent representations. As to some of these the testimony tending to support them is overbalanced by contradictory testimony; as to others the scales are so nearly evenly balanced that we would hesitate to reverse the finding of the chancellor as to them.

One thing seems quite clear even on Hurwitz’s testimony. He led Levin to believe that milk could be shipped from