Marten v. Van Schaick & Bloodgood

4 Paige Ch. 479, 1834 N.Y. LEXIS 394, 1834 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 90
New York Court of Chancery·Decided July 15, 1834·Published·Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

The Chancellor.

Each partner has an equal right in this case to the possession and control of the partnership effects and business, and if they cannot agree among themselves, it is a matter of course to appoint a receiver, upon a bill filed to close the partnership concerns, on the application of either party. If a receiver is appointed, he must proceed and sell the establishment without delay; and in the mean time the business must be carried on by him, as usual, so that the good will thereof may be secured to the purchaser, and the full value of the establishment realized by the partners, on such sale. But the court will not take upon itself the responsibility of continuing the publication of a political paper, by a .receiver, any longer than is absolutely necessary to prevent a sacrifice of the property. Until a sale can be effected, the defendants may continue to superintend the editorial department of the paper, as they have heretofore done; but the paper must be published under the direction of the receiver, who will be personally responsible for any publication therein which is improper.

There must be a reference to a master to appoint a receiver, without delay.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Marten v. Van Schaick & Bloodgood, 4 Paige Ch. 479, 1834 N.Y. LEXIS 394, 1834 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 90 (N.Y. 1834).

4 Paige Ch. 479 (Marten v. Van Schaick & Bloodgood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Oyama v. Stuart
22 Haw. 693 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1915)
Didlake v. Roden Grocery Co.
49 So. 384 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Fitzpatrick v. Daily States Publishing Co.
20 So. 173 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1896)
Wulff v. Superior Court
42 P. 638 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Blythe v. Gibbons
35 N.E. 557 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Cameron v. Havemeyer
12 N.Y.S. 126 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Rice v. Baggot
7 N.Y.S. 518 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Wilcox v. Pratt
5 N.Y.S. 361 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Clark v. Rugg
20 Fla. 861 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1884)
Barber v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins.
15 F. 312 (N.D. New York, 1883)
Boon v. . Moss
70 N.Y. 465 (New York Court of Appeals, 1877)
McKelsey v. Lewis
3 Abb. N. Cas. 61 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1877)
Davis v. Gray
83 U.S. 203 (Supreme Court, 1873)
Randall v. Morrell
17 N.J. Eq. 343 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1866)
Smith v. New York Consolidated Stage Co.
18 Abb. Pr. 419 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1864)
Sloan v. Moore
37 Pa. 217 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1860)
Cox v. Peters
13 N.J. Eq. 39 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1860)
Wetter v. Schlieper
15 How. Pr. 268 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1858)
Adams v. Haskell
1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 362 (Cal. District Court, 1857)
Jackson v. De Forest
14 How. Pr. 81 (New York Supreme Court, 1856)