WILLIAMSON v. WILSON.—1 BLAND. 393

own use, and averred that the firm was utterly insolvent. The answer
denied the charges of the bill, but admitted the insolvency of the firm.
Held, that a receiver should be appointed.

in partnership property as justified the appointment of receivers. As to a bill
by a creditor against the firm, see Sanderson v. Stockdale. 11 Mdi. 564.

If one partner, in the ordinary course of trade, seeks to exclude another
from taking that part in the concern which he is entitled to take, the Court
will grant a receiver. Speights v. Peters. 9 Gill, 472. After a dissolution
has taken place, or is intended, if one partner acts against the interest of
others, or carries on trade with the partnership funds on his own account,
or in any other manner excludes his copartner from that share to which he
is entitled in winding up the concern, equity will appoint a receiver. Ibid,
and Drury v. Roberts. 2 Md. Oh. 157. Where a partnership still subsists, to
apply for an injunction and receiver, a party must show a case of great abuse
or misconduct. But after a dissolution the objection to the appointment of a
receiver is not so strong. O'Bryan v. Gibbons. 2 Md. Ch. 9.

A receiver will not be appointed upon the application of the representa-
tives of a deceased partner against a surviving partner, unless the latter has
been guilty of mismanagement and improper conduct. Walker v. House. 4
Md. Ch. 39. If both partners are dead, and the representatives of one insti-
tute a suit for an account against the representatives of the other, the Court
will as a matter of course, appoint a receiver. Ibid. Where both parties
are alive, and either has a right to dissolve the partnership, and the agree-
ment between them makes ao provision for closing up the concern, equity
will, as of course, appoint a receiver if they cannot arrange the matter be-
tween themselves. Ibid.

If one partner absconds, his co-partner is entitled to take possession of the
partnership property for the benefit of the firm: and the appointment of a
receiver to take charge of the property of the absconding partner does not
operate to divest the partner remaining of his right to the partnership prop-
erty. Hamill v. Hamill, 27 Md. 679. The plea of infancy is no bar to a bill
by one partner against another for an injunction and receiver. Bush v,
Linthicum, 59 Md. 344. On a bill by one partner for a receiver, he ought to
exhibit the articles of a partnership if in his possession. Haight v. Burr, 19
Md. 135.

A bill alleging that complainants had recovered judgment against one of
the defendants, on which execution had been issued and levied upon certain
goods in a store, and that the other defendant interposes a prior mortgage of
these goods to prevent a sale thereof to satisfy the judgments, and that the
property so mortgaged and levied on is more than sufficient to pay the mort-
gage, and that the mortgagor has no other property out of which the judg-
ments can be satisfied, and has since the execution of the mortgage been
permitted to use and dispose of the goods, and that part of the goods levied
on are not the same as those mortgaged, and that, unless the goods levied on
be taken from the possession of the mortgagor, they will be disposed of and
the complainants subjected to an entire loss of their claims, makes a good
case for an injunction restraining the mortgagor from selling the goods,
and the appointment of a receiver. Rose v. Bevan. 10 Md. 467. A mort-
gagee, before he may foreclose, has the right in case of apprehended danger
or loss of the mortgaged goods to have a receiver appointed. Ibid.

An injunction was granted and a receiver appointed before answer, upon
a bill by a judgment creditor, who, after exhausting his remedies at law,
was seeking to enforce by a bill in equity his judgment lien against personal
property covered by a mortgage. The only allegations of the bill authoriz-