
    William Reynolds, vs. Hiram Austin and John Wilson.
    
      New Castle,
    
      Feb. T. 1867.
    Upon a bill for the dissolution of a partnership, on account of the insanity of a partner, the complainant partner appointed receiver.
    Bill in Equity. Motion For Receiver.—This bill was filed to obtain a dissolution of a partnership existing between the complainant and the defendant Wilson. The partnership was equal as to capital and as to the division of profits and losses, The defendant Wilson had become insane and had been so found upon inquisition and the defendant Austin had been appointed trustee.
    On Feb. 25, 1867 the bill was filed and, on motion of Lore, for the complainant, it was ordered that a receiver be appointed and the complainant was appointed receiver.
    Subsequently Whiteley, for the defendant
    Austin, appeared and filed an answer, and the cause was disposed of by á consent decree, upon agreement of counsel filed, declaring the equality of the partnership and confirming the account of the receiver, and directing the payment of one-half the net amount in the hands of the receiver to the defendant Austin, as trustee, and that the complainant retain for his own use the other half.
    Note. High, in his work on Receivers, says, Section 540, “ A plaintiff 11 partner, in an action for a dissolution of the firm, has sometimes been appointed “ receiver, although the practice in this country is an unusual one, and only to be ‘1 justified upon the implied condition that he will discharge the duties of his 1 * trust free of charge.”
    In Wilson vs. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 483, one of the defendant partners was appointed receiver without salary, and upon giving security, the plaintiffs not objecting. In Ex parte Stoveld, I Glyn. & Jam. 307, in bankruptcy, a solvent partner was appointed receiver without salary.
     