
    Isaac Bodenstein, Appellant, v. Morris Oppenheim, Respondent.
    
      Partnership •—■ modification of partnership agreement — lack, of consideration — duress.
    
    
      Bodenstein v. Oppenheim, 186 App. Div. 945, affirmed.
    (Submitted October 18, 1920;
    decided November 16, 1920.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 27, 1918, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The action was for the dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting. The complaint set forth the formation of the partnership; that the same was later extended by mutual agreement to December 1, 1915, and then alleged that the contract was modified by a subsequent agreement which is set forth. The answer, after denying the material allegations of the complaint, alleged as a first defense that an account was had and stated between the parties, .and that the books were audited by an auditor mutually agreeable to the parties; and as a second defense that the execution of the memorandum referred to was procured by the plaintiff by means of threats, force and duress, and without any consideration moving from the plaintiff to the defendant. The trial court held that there was no consideration for the modification of the partnership agreement and that it was exacted under duress.
    
      
      I. Maurice Wormser and I. T. Flatto for appellant.
    
      Max L. Schallek, James B. Kilsheimer, Jr., and Jerome F. Cohen for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  