Katz v. Brewington

Bryan, J., after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the Court. We are, of course, on this appeal, confined to the statements of the bill of complaint. The defendant might have objected to the motion for a receiver, on the ground that he had not received the required notice; but he does not appear to have done so. If he had filed his answer before the hearing, it would have been considered, both in the Court below, and in this Court. The time appointed for the continuance of the partnership had expired before the filing of the bill of complaint, and it was then existing only by the mutual consent of the partners. The agreement of partnership required Katz to furnish all the capital, and the profits were to be equally divided, after payment of debts and expenses. It was not alleged by the complainant that any profits had been made, or that there were any debts due by the partnership. It was, however, alleged that the defendant had excluded him from all control of the business of the firm ; and had refused to give him any information respecting it, and had carried away the books from the place of business, and had refused to disclose the place in which they were. Each partner has an equal right to take part in the management of the business of the firm; although one of them may have an interest only in the profits, and not in the cajjital, yet his rights áre involved in the proper conduct of the affairs of the firm, so that profits may be made. So each partner has an equal right to information about the partnership affairs, and to free access to its books. The complainant had a right to learn from the books whether there were profits, and whether there were debts. If he were denied this information, as charged in his bill of complaint, a sufficient reason appears for not alleging that profits had *83 been earned, and that debts existed. In Ernst vs. Harris, 1 Turner & Russell, 496, Lord Eldon said: “The most prominent point on which the Court acts in appointing a receiver of a partnership concern, is the circumstance of one partner having taken upon himself the power to exclude another partner from as full a share in the management of the partnership as lie, who assumes that power, himself enjoys.” This principle seems to be universally approved by the authorities. It is decisive of the present question. The order must be affirmed. (Decided 11th June, 1889.) Order affirmed with costs, and cause remanded.