National Republican., 1885-08-06
THE wAvERLY CLUB SUIT.

THE WAVERLY CLUB SUIT.
JUSTICE HAGNER DECLARES HE HAS BEEN
IMPOSED UPON "A PRIVATE CLUB
PROVES A PROPRIETARY CONCERN.
The ownership and possession Of the
property claimed TO belong to the Wav-
crly Club at 1918 Pennsylvania avenue
is likely to get somebody into trouble, if
not in Jail, before the dispute is finally
settled. The differences between the
parties claiming to be partners carried
them into the equity court, where re.
ceiver was appointed by Justice IIagner.
Yesterday the justice found sufficient
grounds existing for the revocation Of
that order, which was done, and another
was passed directing the receiver
recently appointed to turn the property
over to George r. Ketchum.
Justice Hagner made some pretty
sharp structures in regard to the manner
in which the first order was obtained, and
declared that the court had been i'm.
posed upon. He said the bill presented
q good prima facie case for the appoint.
mpnt of receiver. According to its
statements, verified by the oaths Of Cald.
well and Armstrong and the accom- pany.
ing aiiidavits of Armstrong and Ged des,
the three partners, Caldwell, Ketchum,
and Anderson, were at variance. Ket.
chum was claiming the entire right of
management of the business of the firm,
to the exclusion Of the others, aud was
using the furniture and other appliances
of the Waverly Club, all of which, it was
alleged, had been paid for exclusively
by Caldwell for his private purposes and
without accountability to his copartners,
whose right he was setting at defiance.
The copartuership had entered into Ger.
tain relations, as caterers, with the
Waverly Club, whose members we're de-.
pendent upon the harmonious workings
OF the copartners for the success and
comfort of the club. Under this presen
tation of alleged facts the court, on the
last day of the July term, and as the
| last act of its session, passed an
order in conformity with the practice in
cases of discord between partners, up.
pointing receiver, to act as a common
agent for the benefit of the firm, under
the orders Of the court and until it should
determine otherwise. Where partners
equal in authority, differ as to every acl
proposed to be performed by either one
the business of the firm would be prac
tically at an end, unless an arbiter oil
manager should be appointed to carry on
its business independent Of the quarrell
of the parties, and perform its existing
contracts. Armstrong was rec
commended receiver by the complainants
and the court assuming, 90 it was obliged
to do, from the bill and aifidavits tha
he was an impartial person
holding ane claiming no pecuniar,
interest in the copartnershil
affairs passed an order for his appoint
ment upon his executing a sulIicien
bond in the sum of $4,000.
Subsequently Armstrong presented hi
bond with Charles A. MclGwen as surety
accompanied by certificate from VIM
Morgan, assistant assessor, setting fortl
that real estate to the amount of $40, ,45t
was assessed on the books Of the office il
The judge examined McEwen PERSONAL,
as to the condition and value of tn
property, and received his positive as
surance that he owned property nea
Benning's to greater amount, and th
bond was therefore approved. Ate
this was all done the defendant, Ketchum
by his counsel, brought to the attention
Of the court the facts that when the pres
ent bill was filed there was pending il
that court bill, No. 9,522 equity, flee
for the same Armstrong against ketchum
in which the plaintiff claimed to be tn
assignee of Caldwell and Anderson @
their interest in the firm, and ipsiste
that rs such assignee he was entitled /
be considered as II copartner, and praye
for an injunction and receiver in lis ow
behalf
This bill was also sworn to by Arm
strong on the I'd of July, and with
we're filed the enioined articles of co
partnership between Caldwell, Anderson
and Ketchum, with the assignment O
Caldwell to Armstrong written on tn
foot, and also the assignment of Andel
son to CALDWELL: ''It thus appears tha,
when Armstrong swore, as he did on tn
! 3lst Of July, 1885,, in this case, thu
Caldwell was then a partner and entitle
to maintain that suit in his quality as &C
partner, there was unrevoked in the sam
court the affidavit of Armstrong in tn
| former cause, insisting that Caldwell n
longer had any such interest, but has al
9 signed it all to Armstrong himself.
t this prior cause had been called to tn
4 attention of the court, no such order O
1 that appointing receiver would hay
been passed, and in no event would thi
, court have appointed Armstrong 10 tn
f position, for the receiver should be
. person Indifferent between the parties
and least of all an individual actual
claiming rights as partner. The resu
r Of all this is that the court has been i'm
1 posed upon by these suitors, Caldwe
/ and Armstrong, and should take immt
s diate steps to undo what has been don
l because of that imposition by then
Answer has been filed by Ketchum
? both causes which presents adeqnat
e support for the motion, and made b
: him to cancel the appointment of th
g receiver heretofore made. These papel
: have been read in the presence ofone
? the present counsel of Armstrong, an
no cause was suggested why the cou
should not grant the notion"
1t was after this staten ent that III
= order appointing a receiver was revoked
!, and another turning the effects over
b Ketchum passed.
rnNcuI MIpEpy DpnunTpn ~