Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-03-24

business of the office was stopped in measure
on account of the book keeper, who had been
plaoed there by MIR. Murtagh, refusing 10 make,
out the accounts against the Government, iS
WAS osclded to conclude the case at once.
hr, DaVidge said he had 10 add sionai au thor
..es 10 Iead other than those read by Mr.. Fuller,
out ass ming Mr.. Bradieys theory TO be corr
Iect, MT weston was a mere trespasser and
MT hanscom had a simple remedy at law
M Ha IL ~. haa a rignt fo redeem the mortgage, and
the amount Woulu-naTe gone to his credit. But
u was evident the parties could net get along
balmoniousiy, and therefore something ought
TO b. done al once Mr.. Day,dre ma 4 fa-ts ma
figures which he would bring to bra unm ths
case AT the proper time. He saw scheme ON
the part OF HansCOm 10 possess himself OF a llof
tnis concern: An lnfolvent, who owed the con-,
cfrn over $500, wss endeavoring to exclude a
solvent partner who was credited with s., GO0t
MIR. Fuller, Dir. Davidge argued, had estah-.
iisned sael me law as TO the mortgage, and hads
cieally SHOWN that Mur gh had a right.to give
the mcrteaee 10 Mr.. Weston The prayeT OF
me nplainant was not to put Weston oats
merely, Dut 10 prevent one Of the propristorxs
from in interfering with the property or Business,
of the Office But assuming the mortgage To- b.
void, then the parties are either partners or
tenants in common. The duty of the Court, he
then believed, was, if they could not get along
as partners or tenants in common, to appoint a.
receiver and have the affairs OF the concern
properly wound up. Mr.. Davidge would there
tore submit that MIR. Murtagh was entitled TO b
make mortgage, and il was a lien, not for a pri
yate purpose, or hey ond the scheme Of partner-
ship, but Tor germane purpose 2d If Mr.
Hanscom is solvent, as 1t is claimed he is ha-
has only to redeem the mortgage Mr. Hapscon ,
was indebted to the concern, as the books. 3
would fully show. -
Mr.. Davidee further argued to show that Mr..
Muriagh had right to make the mortgaga, or
even II he had no. right, and the mortgag..
was void the injunction should not work q ; 1,
against him, a partner.
Mr.. Bradley, in reply, said the bill Of CONT
plant W as drawn with reference 10 the fact
that Mr. Hanscom was a two third owner aud
Mr.. Murfagh merely one-t third owner, aad
that the latter with intent to harrass and
disturb the complainant had made an assign.
ment. Mr.. Bradley then proceeded to state the
snbiect matter of the bill of compIairan,, and
held that Mr.. Hanscom was \ two third owner
Tor Mr.. N urtaeh 8 answer did not positively
deny the fac, s-. ~ as arg unsTI;ayive 70 show
reason why il could not be Mr.. Muttagh
goes to an old partner ana makes an assignment
TO him so that they can have control-h0.h we'll
knowing that Mr. Hanscom protested against
the assignment. MIR. Bradley was prepared TO
admit that in some cases one partner could as
sign the effects OF a partnership con cern, as
where enc partner was absent from the couIl-
try, but it could not be done when the partner
WIS present and made an objection; aud in
support OF this Mr.. B. read numerous authorI-
ties.
Mr. Bradley also argued that the allsg ation
that Hanscom was insolvent was preposterous
In view Of the TACT that he held a two-thirds
interest In a concern for which Weston was
willing Il advance 81, 900 and aIso ass ume the ,
responsibility fer the additional Indebtedness
of the concern.
s... DECISION OF JUDGE WYLIK ..
Justice Wylie said he had no diffic ulty about
the matter, The transfer by Murtagh to wes-
ton was clearly void and it was not done in
the course of business. 1t was the case of one
partner who. though a creditor, had NO right 70 .
introduce stranger, no matter what his own
ownership might be. This was not the ordi-
nary case OF one partner disposing of rnerchan-
disc or giving pledge, but the effect of the
transfer was TO give Weston the full control
and management. The Court could not shut
his eyes to the effect, no matter what the mo-
tives might have been. This arrangement was
made, not to continue a partnership, but TO !
break it up. The injunction is therefore held
good as against Mr.. Weston, but not as against
Mr.. Murtagh.
The matter therefore remains as il was be-
fore the controversy commenced; ana MI Da-
vidge obtained leave to file q cross bill and sss
the appoin tment of a receiver.