ROBERT J. REED, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY A. BEALS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a partnership dispute where one partner sought dissolution and winding up of partnership affairs through a bill in chancery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's interlocutory order appointing a receiver to manage partnership property during dissolution proceedings.
A receiver will be appointed as a matter of course whenever a court of equity intervenes due to dissensions or disagreements between partners to effect a settlement and closing of partnership concerns, provided a partner files a bill showing either breach of duty or violation of the partnership agreement. The interlocutory order appointing a receiver was proper and should be affirmed.
“whenever the intervention of a court of equity becomes necessary, in consequence of dissentions or disagreements between the partners, to effect a settlement and closing of the partnership concerns, upon bill filed by any of the partners, showing either a breach of duty on the part of the other partner, or a violation of the agreement of partnership, a receiver will be appointed as a matter of course”
Establishes the legal principle governing appointment of receivers in partnership dissolution cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA partnership at will existed between Beals (appellee) and Reed (appellant). Beals expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the partnership busin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Winding Up Partnership Affairs cases and more on FLexlaw
Horne, Circuit Judge.
— The record in this case discloses that there was a partnership at will between the appellee and appellant, that there was dissatisfaction on the part of appellee as to the conduct of its business, and that a dissolution of the firm, and a winding up of its affairs was sought by bill in chancery.
“From the examination which we have made of the authorities on the subject, we think the law may be considered as settled, that whenever the intervention of a court of equity becomes necessary, in consequence of dissentions or disagreements between the partners, to effect a settlement and closing of the partnership concerns, upon bill filed by any of the partners, showing either a breach of duty on the part of the other partner, or a violation of the agreement of partnership, a receiver will be appointed as a matter of course.” Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142, text 164.
The bill in the instant case justified the appointment of a receiver under the law, and the courts should be care ful not to suffer a member of a partnership at will, to continue to exercise dominion over partnership property against the will and wishes of his co-partners.
The interlocutory order appealed from being required and justified under the law upon the pleadings and proceedings in the Circuit Court the order appointing a receiver and appealed from should be affirmed.
Per Curiam.
— The record in this cause having been considered by this Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter-, Acts of 1919, adopted by the court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the decree herein be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Browns, O. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Creel v. Creel, 73 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1934)…is impossible to even hope for the slightest cooperation between them. There is absolutely nothing to do but to appoint a receiver to take charge of the partnership property pending a final settlement of the partnership affairs.” In Reed v. Beals, 77 Fla. 801, 82 So. 234, the court said: “Prom the examination which we have made of the authorities on this subject, we think the law may be considered as settled, that whenever the intervention of a court of [*110] equity becomes necessary, in consequence of…
Authorities Cited
- Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1855)