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 44   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

44 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
unless, therefore, the court is satisfied that he cannot be safely
entrusted with the joint estate, the right thus conferred upon
him by law, and confirmed by the confidence of his deceased
partner, should not be wrested from him.
Chancellor Kent says, on the dissolution by death, the surviv-
ing partner settles the affairs of the concern, and the Court of
Chancery will not take the business from him and appoint a re-
ceiver, unless confidence be destroyed by his mismanagement
or improper conduct. 3 Kent's Com; 63, and see Evans vs.
Evans, 9 Paige, 178. The surviving partner alone can sue or
is suable at law upon claims due to and by the firm, the execu-
tor of the deceased having a right to insist upon the application
of the joint property to the payment of the joint debts, and a
division of the surplus. Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Pes., 126. And
if within a reasonable time the survivors do not account with
him and come to a settlement, a court of equity will interfere
in an effectual way to prevent injury to the representatives of
the deceased.
But still there are rights and duties which devolve upon a
Surviving partner upon the death of his associate, and he is to
be allowed a reasonable time for their performance, during
which this court will not interfere and transfer them to other
hands, unless by acts of mismanagement or misconduct, the
confidence otherwise due him shall be destroyed. Gow, 378;
Story on Part., sec. 844; Hart vs. Schrader, 8 Ves; 317.
The counsel for the complainants has pressed upon the court
the distinction between the case of a subsisting partnership,
and one which has terminated, whether by the act of the par-
ties, effluxion of time, or death, or bankruptcy. And there can
be no doubt that the court will interfere by the appointment of
a receiver, with much lees reluctance in the case of a partner-
ship which has closed, than during its continuance. The rea-
son for this difference is pointed out in the cases referred to by
Judge Story in section 231, in his treatise on the Law of Part-
nership, and the note to the section. The reason, in truth, is
an obvious one. In the case of a subsisting partnership, the
court will never interpose in this way unless for such gross

  		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 44   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