Case ID: la-ann_23/html/0781-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "IIowe, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 2412.
    Thomas P. Leathers et al. v. John W. Cannon et als.
    Xu a suit for a settlement of partnership accounts, the question as to whether a certain fund is a partnership asset, belongs of right to the merits of the case, and should not be passed upon in an appeal from an order appointing a receiver
    APPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans.
    
      Oooley, J. T. 8. McKay and Hace, Foster t& K. T. Merrich, for plaintiffs and appellees.
    A. iff K. Marr, for defendants and appellants.
   IIowe, J.

This is an appeal from an order granted upon the application of plaintiffs for the appointment of a receiver of certain funds in the hands.of Kennett & Bell, codelendants with Cannon, alleged to be assets of a partnership which had existed between plaintiffs and Cannon in the business oí owning and running a steamboat.

The answer of Kennett & Bell admits a balance in their hands of $4890 94 to the credit of the owners of the boat, and the plaintiffs claim that tisis is a partnership asset. The defendant Cannon admits that there was a partnership in running the boat, though he contends that the funds in the hands of Kennett & Bell, derived from the insurance on the boat after'her loss, and the sale of certain property of the boat, belong exclusively to him. He prays in his answer for a liquidation and settlement of accounts between the parties.

The right of the court to appoint a receiver is not contested. The sole ground urged by appellants, as we understand them, is that the fund is not a partnership asset. But we think this question would be more properly determined on a trial of the merits. Conceding the right of the court to appoint a receiver under the case presented by the plaintiffs’ petition, and this is not disputed, we think the record shows a state of facts justifying the order appealed from.

Judgment affirmed.

Rehearing refused..