The Sun.
London, England, 1813-12-24 00:00:00

plaintiff': The' acenan, tfo, which•,hc had. open!
etl, and into which he liak paid the sums collect-
ca-by him belonging; to the joint fund, was not
an account ft om which lie drew any sums for his
own private use, but solely on the joint account.
Mr. LRACH baying replied,
. The Loan Curolcm.toa said, if he were certain
as to the facts of the case, the principles by which
the Court would be governed, in disposingot such
tin application, were clear and undisputed. The
fact of the dissolutiol of a partnership was, of
itself, no ground for a'receiver. All that the dis-
solntion meant was, that no new business should
be entered into, but, with that exception, the par-
ties were to act together, and to be governed, in
,regard to their conduct towards each other, by the
None principles as hitherto, till such time as their'
affairs were completely wound up. No contract
between the parties themselves (particularly where
they were of the prOfession to which these parties
belonged) could put ait end to the hasiness iu whiCh
they were engaged, but such business must go on to
a final conclusion : and, thilu4h it was Common and
might be convenient, as between the parties them-
selves, ivhen a partnership such as the present was
dissolved, that the papers should ..be • divided be-
tween the two partners, and that they should each
go on in future, each managing the business con-
nected with the papers which be had separately
kept to himself; still, as to their clients, they
could not do so ; they.lind retained the services of
. both, and, if they insisted on having them, were
entitled to avail themselves of those joint ser-
vices, till their business was concluded. lie
did not say that there might be such peevishness
on both sides, as if made nut satisfactorily might
call on the Court to interfere in such at case ;
but the Court was not, without satisfactory proof;
to suppose that parties were of such tempers, that
they cauld not meet together without coining
to extremities. if there had been an agreement
betweer co-partners, that one should draw money
out of the joint aceount,, in the joint name, for-
the purposes of rice joint concern, that understand-.
ing or agreement could not, by notice froth ontrof
time parties, be altered ; nor was the Ctiort, with-
out distinct proof of the necessity of such a mea-
sure, on the application of one partner, to subject
the other to the expense and hard Ship of having a
receiver imposed nn the joint effects. -If,-or,
other hand, it. Was :shewct that one partner had
improperly interfered, and had employed the part-
nership funds to any other purposes ; if, for in-
stance, being aware"of the impropriety of which
he ni'as guilty, it could be shewn thatbe had em-
ployed those funds in'earrying on any new busi-
ness, on his own account, or so as to procure fa-
vour for himself=—in such a case as that the Court
• would interfere. Those .principles he should 4ipply
to the present case, and should accordingly, alter
reading the allldavits• on both sides, refuse, or
grant, the present application. •

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Di:a. V.

DOBSON V. wir,noN.

In this case, plaintiff, who is a considerable
woollen-cloth manufacturer at Leeds, sought to
recover from defendant, a dealer in cotton twist,
part of an average loss, sustained under the fol-
lowing circumstances :-1n 1807, plaintiff made a
shipment on board a vessel called the Rochdale,
bound from. Hull to Elsineur and St. Petersburg)),
of a quantity of woollen cloths, amounting is va- •
lue to 10001. Defendant, iVilson, put on tioard
the same vessel 325 packages of cotton twist; of
the'value of 151. for each package. The vessel
having sailed, met On her voyage with very heavy
disasters, and was finally obliged to put into Co-
penhagen to repair. ;Here the goods on board
were taken out, and warehoused ; but. on the .
completion of the repairs, the vessel was seized AS
n lawful prize. UNn the subsequent capitols.
tion of Copenhagen, however. she was restored
to the captain, upon whom a demand was home- •
(timely made for the value of the repairs. Not
being able to pay.thls demand,. he was 'arrested;
and thrown into prism!, from whence he liberated
himself by selling ten hales.of-thecloth belonging
to plaintiff. By this sale he 'was enabled to se-
Cure the remaining property on board; and not
being able to proceed on his voyage, on account
of the war, he returned to Hall, and delivered
back hisfreight to the proprietors. Plaintiff, on
ascertaining his loss, applied to deendant
,for his
Share of the average loss, which it became. neces-
sary Co incur for the safety of all the goods, on
board. Defendrint..refuseu to comply with this
demand ; and hence the present action arose.
Mr. Toevita,.; contended, that .according to a
variety of cases, in whieh, for the preservation of
a whole cargo, the property of-one individual had •
been' sacrificed, the whole of the property. thus
preserved waS afterwards' considered liable to an
average loss.
Lord, ELLENISOROUGII held. however, that in
the
,present instance, the loss complained or by
the plaintiff had been siistained, not for the pre-
servation Of the cargo, but, for the emantipation
of the Captain from prison ; and as this did riot
come within the meaning of the eases, of average
loss, which had been derided, the plaintiff hoist
be nonSuited.—A. nonsuit 'was ,accordingly en-
tered.