Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-06-26
The medical College Chaseery suit

anu aA-NAANtSA AOAAG5b OHdhCGEI sAAANe
The argument in the college suit in the
Ghancery Court, on the motion of COM
Plainants to appoint Receiver, was con-
cluded yesterday, but no decision rendered
by the Chancellor. Judge Cooper, for the
defendants, delivered mastery argument.
It's main points were as follows;g ma (
"a Receiver cannot be appointed where
the defendant has the legal title to the
property. 81 d y & E. zs-5ss.H rai7rs3 (
2. The complainanis have not shown
they have such an interest in the property
as to entitle them to demand Receiver.
8. The appointment Of Receiver in
this case, would work irreparable mischief
and cause the destruction of the very thing
in litigation. - i7geE "a sit a
Judge Cooper opened his argument by
asserting that the defendants had, through
their counsel and otherwise, at every step
in the suit, made every possible effort to-
wards securing speedy and amicable
adjustment Of difficulties. They had
offered to submit the whole merits of
the case, al once, on an agreed state
ment Of facts, to the decision of the
Chancellor, each party to reserve the
right of appeal. The. eomplsinants, how
ever, had refused TO consider all overtures,
but had asserted, through the pleadings,
and outside of them, that they desired no
further fellowship with the defendants.
The question now under consideration at
this stage Of the proceedings, addressed
itself purely to the discretionary power of
the court. All that the compliments could
ask in the end, upon trial on the merits,
would be a restoration to their professors
ships, or a division Of the partnership
property, should it turn out there was any
to divide. Better, in either event, that the
department should 60 on as now organ
lied, for the good of the college, the COM
munity, and even the compliments them
selves. If restored, they would then 60
into flourishing chairs TWAS well known
the defendants were solvent, but they had
also offered to give ample bonds and secu-
rity to meet any claim for damages the
complainants might consider themselves
entitled to, for defendants action in the
premises. But complainants seemed not
only willing, but anxious, like blind Samp-
son Of old, to eneircle their arms around the
Il columns Oh llLl6 uDuOICd dDNuC Vi
learning, which they had contributed,
not TO erect, but to adorn, and, under
the impulse of passion, to pull the entire
edifce to destruction. The six original
lessees obtained from the Trustees Of the
( University, a lease Of the Medical build
ings, With absolute and exclusive control
over the rights and powers it conferred.
The lease vested them with the legal title
| 10 the property. 1t, in express terms, gives
them the right to charge or abolish chairs
and professorships. If the complainants
are successors" under the lease, no mat
ter what their rights as such may be, the
court could not deprive the original lessees
of their rights and powers under the lea Sc.
The appointment Of a Receiver would work
| a forfeiture Of the lease Of the University,
| and would utterly destroy all Of the vested
rights of the lessees. To grant what the
complainants ask, would be destruction
| of the very thing in litigation. What
rights are claimed by the cOmplainantsY
| They do not affirm that, when they were
admitted as Professors, they entered into
any kind of Partnership, nor Is there any
pretense that any agreement for any dis
tinct time was made between the parties.
The complainants were admitted as Pro-
fessors simply on the basis of division Of
labor and pro6ts The original lessees had
given largely out Of their private means
towards founding the department. The
compliments, on being admitted TO the
Faculty had not paid IN or assumed any
part Of this original contribution.
1t must first be shown that there was a
partnership between the parties; that it
| r.. 90 in fiunas and If
no time was agreed upon as u the length
OF The partnership, then the parties could
dissolve st any time, or one party could at
any time be ousted by the majority, and
his only remedy would be to have an &C
count taken Of the old partnership effects,
SO that, Il we admit partnership existed
then the majority could dissolve it or Gust
one OF its members al any time. But, also,
one Of the express provisions Of the lease
gives 10 the majority the same right When
the compliments were admitted 10 the
Faculty, they might have refused to 20 in
under the provisions of the lease. This
they did DOT do. but accepted under II,
thereby admitting their associates had
the right to turn them ont. Their
only remedy now, is to have an
account taken Of the old busi
mess. The only rights their admission
70 the Faculty gsYe them we're to use tins
property while Trey held their respective
, chairs. The lease itself under which the
property is held gives their associates, or
d Inc original lessess, the right 10 turn them
out. The property ITSELF on The expiration
OF the lease, reyerts to the University. 81
there can be no partnership property IN
this case for a Receiver 20 control or io'
the court 10 sell and divide. When party
asks for Receiver, he must show there 4
partnership and thatthere is partnership
property. The only gy0und FOR granting
, an injunction and appointment Of Re
ceivsr. Is thai irreParahie damage viii b
done the party seeking them. There Ar
no such grounds in this case. The COM
} piainsntE can be fully Unidentified Il
! damages II they have sustained any injury
The defendants are perfectly solvent an'
able 10 meet asy claim for damages.