
    Brush v. Jay et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    December 13, 1888.)
    fAETNEKSHir—Dissolution—Reoeiveiis.
    Where a firm of attorneys retained original abstracts of the titles which they were employed to examine, and delivered copies to their clients, and the good-will of their place of business, which includes a business made by a deceased partner, is valuable, and, on dissolution, a portion of the former partners have given notice that they will continue business at the offices occupied by the firm, it is proper, in an action to adjust the affairs of the firm, to appoint a receiver of the abstracts, the unexpired lease of the offices, and the office furniture, with direction to sell the same, and permission to the members to purchase.
    
      Appeal from special term, Kings county.
    Action by Charles H. Brush against William Jay and Flamen B. Candler, for the adjustment of the affairs of a partnership between the parties for the-practice of law. The assets of the firm were alleged to consist of an unexpired lease, abstracts of title, office furniture, library, good-will, etc. Defendants-had issued notices of dissolution, stating that they should continue the practice of law at the offices of the old firm. An order appointing a receiver of the lease, office furniture, and abstracts of title, and directing him to sell the same at auction, and permitting the parties to purchase, was granted, and defendants appeal.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
    
      F. B. Candler, for appellants. Johnson & Lamb, (A. E. Lamb, of counsel,) for respondent.
   Barnard, P. J.

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 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-the old ones. Under the notices issued by defendants, 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 their assets, seems-to be just, and should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.  