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

LANGtuppE U. NELL.

Mr. Li ACII moved„ that., a 'receiver should be
Uppointed in this case, to uplift the debts due to
the plaintiff and defendant,, who had for 16 years
carried on business as co=partners in the proles- ,
Lion of attornies at Lewes. The plaintiff, in con-
sequence of some misunderstanding between the
parties, gave notice to the defendant of a disso-
lution of the partnership between them, to take
place as on the 24th June last'; and with a view
to this dissolution the papers relative to their
business had been divided between them. The
plaintiff had offered to the defendant to refer to
any respectede person the adjustment of the ac-
counts, between them', butothis the defendant re—
fused to agree to its the mean dine, the
plaintiffs being satisfied that the defendant was -
considerably indebted to him, with the view of
preventing him` from adding to and increasing
`that debt, by drawing out of the hands of
,their
bankers the Joint funds, cm his separate,account,.
had- giVen notice to the bankers not to pay any
money out of
.that jo;ut account, unless upon
drafts or orders having.the signatures of both the
plaintiff and defentlant. The defendant, notwith-
standing, bad drawn ,out part of this fund, and
had applied part of it, and also part of several .
sums of money belonging to the joiot con-
cern, which he ltnd collected since the dissolution
of, the partnership, to his own.priXate purposes ;
not only7so, but he ha) opened a new account in
his tiWn name, into which he' had paid „mottles
belonging to the joint eoneern. In these circum-
stances, the present tipplication fora receiver and
.forati injunction agaite,t the defendant, restrain-
ing hint from' interfering with the joint funds,
till, no account should b 4 taken, was made to his,
• Lordship.
Mr. EbwAans followed'on the same side.
Sir Saittict. ltomit.t.,y, end Mr. flows resisted
this application.' An unfortnnee dispute having
arisen between these two gentlemen,' who were
both. highly respectable, and who had long been
connected pi business together ; the plaintiff had
given to the defendant notice of a diss.ohttion of.
piirtnership which the defendant denied ha hail a
right to do. That was a.question still to be set-
tled. . But. before it could he settled, The plaintiff
came into that Conn and called upou his Lordship
fo appoint a i'eceiver of the fonds and effects he-
hmgig to the joint concern, in which the present
plaietiff and defendant lvere, equally interested..
' an application tvlo ch therLeamedCoeitsel.
were satisfied his Lord:014) %You'd:l.o'6e, uniess„
iudeed; the law '(-)f the Court Was, that where-
ever, in 'any case, a • partiwrship was at an
CIO, a Treelrer Ilitht, by appointed. There was,
not,,.' they. submitted, the least pretence, for
this motion, es there was nor even an allegation
miscOndnet, but what the defendant 'tech done:
was inaiter of absolute neeess;ty,. and wbielt he
was compelled to do 'hy the stet of the 'plaintiff
himself, who 11... d rendered it impoisiblethat: he.
should co'ritinue to pay the jointAnoncy into an-
account, out of Which be conl,l net again draw it,.
fin' the purposes p 1 the joint concern. Having,
hOweVer, lax:wailed on the bankers, to pay Wm, :It
the end of the quarter, money Atifficient re an-
swer the ogiceexpenditure, and a144'100/. ftir his
awn private use, he Lad had the delicacy to trans-
fer a sin4aar stall to the private account of the