clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 43   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

WALKER, ADM'R OF HOUSE ET AL VS. HOUSE. 43
Whatever may be the course of the court in regard to such
appointment in the case of living partners, when either has a
right, at his pleasure, to dissolve the connection, or where the
partnership is terminated by the mere efflux of time, there can-
not, I think, be found any case in which a receiver has been
put in upon the application of the representatives of a deceased
partner against the survivor, unless he has been guilty of mis-
management and improper conduct. Gow on Part., 382;
Philips vs. Atkinson, 2 Bro. Ch. Rep., 272. It is true, if
both partners are dead, and the representatives of one institute
a suit against the other, the court will, as a matter of course,
appoint a receiver, and the reason given for this distinction be-
tween the case of the representatives of a deceased partner
suing the survivor, and the case of the representatives of one
deceased partner suing the representatives of the other, when
both are dead, is, that notwithstanding the death of one, confi-
dence in the other partner remains, whereas, when both are dead,
there is no confidence between their respective representatives.
This is the reason given by Lord Thurlow, in 2 Brown, Oh.
Rep., 272, and by Gow, 282, 288, and Collyer, 197.
It was said by Chancellor Walworth, in the case of Law vs.
Ford, 2 Paige, 310, that where either partner has a right to
dissolve the partnership, and the agreement between the parties
made no provision for closing up the concern, it was, of course,
to appoint a manager or receiver on a bill filed for that purpose,
if they could not arrange the matter between themselves, and
this appears to be reasonable, because, as a general rule, each
partner has an equal right to the possession of the partnership
effects, and to collect and apply them in satisfaction of the
debts of the firm. But that was the case of a dissolution, inter
vivos, where the equal rights of the partners (they being unable
to agree as between themselves) would seem to render the inter-
position of the court in this form indispensable. But the case of
a proceeding by the representatives of a deceased against a
surviving partner, is wholly different; the latter, by law, has a
right to the custody, care, and management of the joint estate.
He is the person in whom the deceased reposed confidence, and

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 43   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives