Brush v. Jay — 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 312

Majority

p. 312

Charles H. Brush, Resp’t, v. William Jay and Flamen B. Candler, App’lts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed December 10, 1888.)

Headnote

Partnership—Termination op—Receiver—Joint property.

In an action to adjust the affairs of a firm of attorneys, where in the course of their business they had retained the original abstracts of titles,, which they were employed to examine, delivering copies to their clients, these abstracts and the good will of their place of business, which includes-a business made by a deceased partner, are valuable, and on dissolution, a portion of the former partners having given notice that they will continue business at the offices occupied by the firm, it is proper to appoint a receiver of the abstracts, the unexpired lease of the offices, and the office furniture, with directions to sell the same, and permission to the members, to purchase.

Appeal from an order made at a special term of Kings county, by Mr. Justice Bartlett appointing a receiver herein.

This action is brought to dissolve a copartnership heretofore existing between the plaintiff and defendant under the

p. 313

.name of Jay, Candler and Brush. They were attorneys and counsellors-at-law, and engaged in the practice of their profession in the building known as No. 48 Wall street, in the city and county of New York. The assets of said firm, in addition to a lease of four rooms in said building which stands in the firm name and expires May 1, 1889, unless renewed as therein provided for a further term of three years ■consist of upwards of 1,700 abstracts of title, law books, office furniture, outstanding accounts, which are good and collectible, of at least $10,000 in amount, and also much unfinished and valuable business.

The order appoints a receiver,, only, of the lease, office furniture and abstracts of title, and directs him to sell the same at auction, and permits the parties to purchase.

Flamen B. Candler, for app’lts; Johnson & Lamb (A. E, Lamb, of counsel), for resp’t.

There is nothing in this case which ■should take it out of the general rule governing the termination of partnership. It is almost a matter of course to appoint a receiver. The joint property whatever it may be is taken by the court into its possession through its receiver. The trial of the issue between the parties will -determine what are assets. McElvey v. Lewis, 76 N. Y., 373 .

In the present case there is an unexpired lease and that is an asset to a share of which the plaintiff is entitled. Mitchell v. Read, 84 N. Y., 556 .

There are also many abstracts of title belonging to the firm. Whenever the firm was employed to search a title, the original abstracts were kept by the firm. An abstract for the client was prepared and delivered to him, but for the future benefit of the firm the original was retained. These do not belong to the client. He got what he paid for. The original abstract belonged to the firm. Justice ■cannot be done between the parties unless these assets are sold at once. All the parties lay great stress upon the value of the good will which includes a business which was made by Edgar Van Winkle, deceased. The plaintiff is ■entitled to take his share of the value of the lease on that account and the lease expires on May 1, 1889. The searches presumably may be needed by such of the members of the firm as buy them at any time. All new searches of the title are rendered slight with the possession of the old ones. Under the notices issued by defendant, the clients of the firm would alone derive the benefit of the searches for the notice specifies them as continuing business at the place leased by the old firm.

The order appointing a receiver and directing a sale of

p. 314

their assets seems to be just, and should be affirmed, with, costs and disbursements.

All concur.