Case ID: nj-eq_23/html/0388-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sutro vs. Wagner.
    1. When upon motion to dissolve an injunction granted in a suit by on& partner against another for a dissolution, an account and a receiver, it appeared that the defendant had deliberately resolved to break up and ruin the business of the firm, and the personal relations of the two partners were such that they could never carry on the business together to advantage, the injunction was retained and a receiver appointed.
    2. Motion to dissolve denied, with costs; the costs of the motion for receiver to abide the event.
    There was notice on part of defendant of a motion to dissolve an injunction heretofore granted in this suit, and a notice on part of the complainant for the appointment of a. receiver. By consent, both motions were argued together.
    
      Mr. Borcherling, for complainant.
    
      Mr. Guild, for defendant.
   The Chancellor.

This suit is by one partner against the other, for a dissolution, an account, and a receiver. The grounds of complaint are: a failure by the defendant to fulfill his partnership obligations, his neglect and refusal to proceed with any efficiency in the business, his fraudulent appropriation of the funds, and his fraudulent voluntary conveyance of his separate property to his son, for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of creditors of the firm, so as to leave the complainant’s separate property liable for the debts of the firm beyond its assets, and giving notice of such transfer to the mercantile agency, for the purpose of ruining the credit of the firm.

The answer of the defendant denies some of these charges* but not all. The voluntary transfer of his separate property, and the notice of it to the mercantile agency, are not denied.. These, in connection with some other matters not denied, are sufficient to show that the defendant had deliberately resolved to break up and min the business of the firm. And the personal relations of the two partners art; such that they can never carry on the business together to advantage. The injunction must be retained, and a receiver appointed.

The motion to dissolve is denied, with costs. The costs of the motion for receiver most abide the event.