Whitman v. Robinson

Bartol, J., delivered the opinion of this Court: In the case of Law vs. Ford, 2 Paige’s Ch. Rep., 310, Chancellor Walworth decided: "That whore either party ⁴² lias a right to dissolve the partnership, and. the agreement between the parties makes no provision for closing up the concern, it was of course to appoint a manager or reeeiver, on a bill filed for that purpose, if they could not arrange the matter between themselves.” That was a case of an application for the appointment of a receiver, to dispose of the effects, and close up the concerns of a partnership, on a bill filed by one partner against another. The application was resisted on the ground that the partner who was in possession of the partnership books and effects, was willing to give security for the faithful application of the effects in payment of debts, &c. A similar decision was made by the same Chancellor in Marten vs. Van Schaick & Bloodgood, 4 Paige’s Ch.

Rep., 479. There a bill was filed by one or more partners for the purpose of dissolving a partnership, and to settle the partnership accounts and distribute the property and effects of the firm. The appointment of a receiver was opposed on the ground that “the principal value of the property consisted in the good will of their business, which it was alleged would be lost by the appointment of a receiver.” The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the case of Sloan vs. Moore, 37 Penna. Rep., 217, recognized the same rules for the guide of a Chancery Court, in the appointment of a receiver of partnership effects, where a dissolution has taken place, or is intended.

On page 222, the Court say: “Indeed it is difficult to see, how the necessity of a receiver can be avoided on the dissolution of a partnership, where the parties cannot agree as to the disposition of the joint effects,. for no one has a right to their possession and control sujierior to that of the other.” The same principle was recognized by Chancellor Johnson, in the case of Walker, Adm’r, vs. House, 4 Md. Ch. Dec., 43. Where the learned Chancellor after citing the decision in Law vs. Ford, says: “This appears to be reasonable, because as a general rule each partner has an equal right to the possession of the partnership effects, and ⁴³ to collect and apply thorn in satisfaction of the debts of the firm. ’ ’ The rules laid down in the case of Blondheim vs. Moore, 11 Md. Rep., 365 , as governing Courts of Equity in Maryland, in appointing a receiver, are in our opinion inapplicable to sucb a case as ibis. That was a bill