Opinion
03-31-1890
RHODES v. WILSON
John W. Wartman, for complainant. Howard Carrow, for defendant.
This is a bill by James H. Rhodes against William D. Wilson, for dissolution of copartnership, and the appointment of a receiver. In October, 1889, complainant and defendant entered into the mercantile business as copartners.In February, 1890, an accident to complainant confined him to his house, and when he was able to go out he returned to the store. He was ignored by defendant, who had complete possession of the store and goods, and was refused any rights as partner; defendant claiming that he had dissolved the copartnership, and circulated printed notices to that effect. Complainant, claiming an interest in the stock and accounts, prays for a receiver and an accounting. An order was granted requiring defendant to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed, and, pending the return of the rule, a restraining order was granted to prevent defendant from disposing of the goods and accounts of the firm.
John W. Wartman, for complainant. Howard Carrow, for defendant.
BIRD, V. C. I cannot come to the conclusion that there should be a receiver in this case. Nor do I think the order restraining the defendant should be continued. The case, as made by the pleadings and proofs, leads to the conviction that the complainant is principally in fault, whether willfully or by circumstances over which he had no control or not, for the condition of affairs of which he complains. Besides, I see no reason whatever for adding the expense of a receiver to the burden which the partnership assets are now wholly inadequate to bear; and this is especially so when there is no question made but that the defendant, who has charge of all the assets, except the outstanding claims, is responsible. That the court may refuse a receiver in such cases is very clearly established by the case of Birdsall v. Colie, 10 N. J. Eq. 63. See, also, 2 Lindl. Partn. 539, bottom p. 612; Id. 548, bottom p. 622. The order to show cause will be discharged. The costs will abide the final determination of the suit.