Meinhard v. Salmon
249 N.Y. 458 (1928)
Rule of Law:
Co-adventurers in a business enterprise owe each other the highest duty of loyalty, which includes the duty to disclose opportunities for profit that arise from the venture's activities. A managing co-adventurer who secretly takes such an opportunity for himself breaches this fiduciary duty.
Facts:
- In 1902, Louisa M. Gerry leased the Hotel Bristol to Walter J. Salmon for a 20-year term.
- To fund renovations, Salmon entered into a joint venture with Morton H. Meinhard, who provided half the necessary money in exchange for a share of the profits.
- Under their agreement, Salmon had the sole power to manage, lease, and operate the property.
- The joint venture was profitable for both parties over the 20-year term.
- Near the end of the lease, the new property owner, Elbridge T. Gerry, sought to lease a larger tract of land that included the Hotel Bristol site for a major redevelopment project.
- After other potential developers declined, Gerry approached Salmon because he was the current tenant of the key property.
- Salmon, without informing Meinhard, negotiated and signed a new long-term lease for the entire tract through his own newly-created company, the Midpoint Realty Company.
- Meinhard remained unaware of the new lease opportunity until after the agreement was finalized.
Procedural Posture:
- Meinhard (plaintiff) sued Salmon and the Midpoint Realty Company (defendants) in a New York trial court.
- A court-appointed referee found in favor of Meinhard, awarding him a 25% interest in the new lease.
- Both parties filed cross-appeals to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division modified the referee's judgment, increasing Meinhard's interest to one-half of the new lease.
- The defendants (Salmon and Midpoint Realty Company) appealed this modified judgment to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a managing co-adventurer breach his fiduciary duty by secretly acquiring a new, more extensive lease that encompasses the original leasehold, for his own benefit and without informing his partner, when the opportunity arose because of his position as lessee of the original property?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, Ch. J.
Yes. A managing co-adventurer breaches his fiduciary duty by acquiring for himself a new lease that is an extension and enlargement of the original leasehold without disclosing the opportunity to his partner. Joint adventurers owe one another a duty of 'the finest loyalty,' a standard stricter than the 'morals of the market place.' Salmon's position as manager and lessee of the Bristol Hotel gave him the unique opportunity to secure the new lease from Gerry; this opportunity was an asset of the joint venture. By failing to inform Meinhard, Salmon excluded him from any chance to compete for or share in the new venture, which was a direct 'graft' upon the original one. Therefore, Salmon must hold the new lease in a constructive trust for the benefit of the joint venture.
Dissenting - Andrews, J.
No. A managing co-adventurer does not breach his fiduciary duty because the joint venture was for a limited term and purpose that was set to expire, and the new lease was a fundamentally different transaction, not a mere renewal. The original agreement was to exploit a specific 20-year lease, and any expectancy of renewal ended with the venture's term. The new lease involved a much larger property, a far greater financial commitment, and a potential 80-year term, making it more akin to a purchase of the reversion than a simple renewal. As there was no fraud or deceit, and the original venture was ending, Salmon was free to pursue this new, separate opportunity for himself.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established one of the highest standards of fiduciary duty in American law, famously described as 'the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive.' It solidifies the principle that partners or joint venturers cannot secretly appropriate opportunities that arise from their business relationship, even if the opportunity extends beyond the original scope of the venture. The ruling has profoundly influenced corporate and partnership law, particularly in defining the 'corporate opportunity doctrine,' which restricts directors and officers from taking business opportunities for themselves that rightfully belong to the corporation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Meinhard v. Salmon (1928)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"