WILLIAMSON v. WILSON.—1 BLAND. 401

condition of actual insolvency; yet under other circumstances, his
own interest would withhold him from attempting to have this
power of the Court of Chancery applied to an unjust and perni-
cious purpose; for, it is rare that a man coolly indulges his malice
to the ruin of his own interests. And, therefore, it cannot often
happen, that a partner will deliberately abandon a gainful and
prosperous traffic in which he is in the undisturbed participation,
and maliciously endeavor to break it up. by fabricating such a
statement as will induce the Chancellor to order the joint funds
into the hands of a receiver. Gow. Partner. 244.

But, suppose a partner, in a prosperous and lucrative concern,
to be actuated In such malignant feelings; how far could he carry
*the abuse of this power: and to what extent, by its means,
could he injure his antagonist? The appointment of a re- 424
ceiver does not, of itself, divest any one of possession; it merely
authorizes the receiver to demand, and to accept the possession
when voluntarily delivered, or to take it when held by no one else.
For, if the holder of the property refuses to deliver it, the receiver
or party interested must apply to the Court for an order to deliver
possession, or to shew cause to the contrary. In all cases, where
the order making the appointment has been made ev parte, and
before answer, the defendant is allowed to come in at an early day
and move to have the order rescinded. And, as regards third
persons, who may have an interest in property thus ordered to be
taken possession of by a receiver, they too are allowed, in a sum-
mary way on notice of motion, to come in and be examined pro
interesse suo. 2 Mad. Chan. 245.

Upon the whole, from whateAcr point of view this Chancery
power may be contemplated; or in relation to whatever of the
various emergencies, to which it has been applied, it may be con-
sidered, it will be found in all respects as safe, and as little liable
to abuse as any judicial procedure known to the common law. It
will be found in practice, that little or no useless pressure can be
produced in any case; and that, in no instance, can the mischief
continue long before the party aggrieved may have an opportunity
of being fully heard, and of obtaining complete relief.

This bill has been filed by one partner against his co-partners,
charging them with a design to consume and waste the joint prop-
erty, or to apply it to their own use: and it avers, that the firm is
absolutely insolvent. The answer denies these charges of the bill,
but admits the insolvency of the firm; and then charges the plain-
tiff with a design so to apply the joint funds as to give an undue
and improper preference to one or more of their creditors. These
parties have, in many respects, given an opposite and very differ-
ent account of the state of affairs between them. They both, how-
ever, admit the present insolvency of the firm, and agree, that

26 1B.