Albrecht v. Robert Dollar Co.
Opinion of the Court
In December, 1914, a contract was made by the Russian government to purchase from a syndicate known as “ Colonel Allison Supply Committee of Canada ” 2,000,000 shrapnel shells. The contract was taken in the names of the defendants Knaap, Dumbadze and Zimdin. They agreed in writing to an equal division of the profits. On December twenty-second these
“ 4th. To admit the following obligations as against third persons:
“(a) Maurice Mansfield in the amount of $97,750. * * *
“ 5th. * * * we simultaneously give the following instructions to The Robert Dollar Company: As to the sums in paragraph 4 the Messrs. Mansfield * * * are to make arrangements according to their own judgment.”.
The Dollar Company was notified in May, 1915, of the revocation of Khaap’s power of attorney and of the May agreement and instructed to make payments in accordance therewith. It refused so to do and wrote Howe: " You will note, by referring to copy of agreement dated April 9th, 1915, that the distribution as therein agreed upon is final and irrevocable, and in order to prevent absolute confusion * * * we must insist that the arrangement
of April 9th, 1915, stand. It would be in order, however, for A. A. Knaap to instruct us regarding the distribution of the sums of $50,000 and $867,821, and we are quite willing to accept an order from Mr. Knaap for the distribution of these latter monies to the beneficiaries as mentioned in his letter, dated Petrograd, May 18, 1915, as far as the monies will reach.” Howe gave this letter to Knaap, Dumbadze and Zimdin and with them arranged to carry out the intention of the parties by having Knaap write a new letter, which, in so far as is here material, reads: “ I now
Then followed confusion worse confounded. Suits were brought against the Canadian Car and Foundry Company by the Dollar Company. Knaap and Lignante, one of the beneficiaries, undertook to and did in fact in 1917 settle their claims directly with the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, assigning to that company all their claims on these funds. They. thereupon attempted to revoke Knaap’s second instruction. Dumbadze, who had been imprisoned by the Bolshevik government, instructed the Canadian Car and Foundry Company by cable, on his release in December, 1917, to pay no portion of his share to any one but himself.
In this situation Mr. Cahan (attorney for Canadian Car and Foundry Company) and Mr. Lilliek (representing the Dollar Company) attempted to bring order out of chaos by settlement. Cahan’s testimony, essentially uncontradicted, is that they began negotiations, having before them a statement and a chart of the claims still represented by the Dollar Company, which had been prepared by Lilliek. One line therein reads: “ Maurice Mansfield und. letter Oct. 8th 97,950/557,314 of 557,314.00... .$97,950.00,” and the chart accompanying this statement showed this claim as derivative from Knaap’s share. Lilliek refused to accept settlement for Zimdin (who was still friendly with the Dollar Company) and his own company alone, stating that, under the acceptance by Howe of the trust obligation, the company was bound to act for Mansfield. After long negotiation, $360,000 and interest was paid to the Dollar Company by the Canadian Car and Foundry Company in settlement of the claims of itself and its cestuis. While the figures are confusing, analysis indicates their significance. The gross amount originally to be paid was $1,400,000 (seventy cents a shell on 2,000,000 shells). Shortages in delivery of twenty-five per cent reduced the amount actually distributable from $1,400,000 to $1,050,000. A stamp tax of $150,000 had to be paid by some
The Dollar Company argues that since Mansfield’s right rests solely on Knaap’s second instruction (dated October 8, 1915), the attempted revocation thereof in 1917 defeated his claim. I cannot agree with premise or conclusion. While the second instruction might perhaps have been revoked by the joint action of the associates, it certainly could not be revoked by Knaap alone. Moreover, the Dollar Company itself throughout the negotiations for settlement regarded it as unrevoked and actually settled on behalf of Mansfield. It not only assumed a trust relationship to Mansfield, but actually received money, in the Lilliek-Cahan settlement, as Mansfield’s trustee.
It remains to determine the extent of Mansfield’s share. The agreement was to give Mansfield $97,950 out of the expected $1,400,000, or 6.99 per cent. The expectation was not realized. The total profit did not exceed $900,000. Mansfield was to be paid only out of profits and pro rata; his recovery must, therefore, be limited to 6.99 per cent, his pro rata share of the $900,000, which the Canadian Car and Foundry Company was obligated to pay. Applying this percentage to the $900,000, leaves $62,910 as the sum to which Mansfield was entitled.
The Dollar Company insists that the settlement effected was on behalf of all interested in the venture and that, therefore; Mansfield should get only 6.99 per cent of $360,000. But Cahan’s undisputed testimony shows that he was willing to settle with the Dollar Company only on behalf of the following beneficiaries: Robert Dollar Company with a claim for $89,285.70, representing 6.37 per cent of the original $1,400,000; Zimdin with a claim of $217,526.50, or 15.537 per cent of the original $1,400,000; Mansfield with a claim of $97,950, or 6.99 per cent of the original $1,400,000; Setchinsky with a claim of $47,500, or 3.39 per cent of the original $1,400,000; Wolfsohn with a claim of $97,750, or 6.98 per cent of the original $1,400,000; and Smith with a claim of $12,436.60, or 0.88 per cent of the original $1,400,000. These beneficiaries, therefore, had total claims of $562,448.80 and repre»
Having assumed to collect on behalf of Mansfield, the Dollar Company must account to Mansfield for the amount so collected. Judgment that defendant account to plaintiff for $62,910 with interest.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.