Chateau v. Singla

Henshaw, J.

The action is a proceeding in equity by one partner to dissolve a copartnership between -himself and defendant, for the appointment of a receiver, for a statement of accounts, and generally for the closing up of the business of the partnership. In the complaint it is averred that the partnership was formed for the business “ of subletting and renting certain tenements, and in supplying and furnishing the necessary

[92]

household furniture therein to fit the same for habitations and dwellings for human beings.” Further averments of the complaint were that the defendant had excluded plaintiff from all share in the proceeds and profits of the partnership, and from all dealings with the partnership property, and had collected rents and profits of the partnership which he claimed to own and hold as his individual property, and for which he refused to account.

Defendant admitted the partnership, made denial of any and all the wrongful acts charged against him, and for a further and separate defense averred that the copartnership was and is illegal, against good morals and against public policy, “ in this, that the same consisted in the letting, subletting, leasing, and hiring of said tenements and premises in the complaint set forth, and the furniture therein contained, for immoral and unlawful purposes, to wit, for the purpose of maintaining, keeping, and conducting, and .carrying on brothels and houses of ill-fame, and houses, places, apartments, and resorts for the purposes of assignation and prostitution, and that the business carried on by said copartnership has been the letting of said premises, tenements, and furniture for such purposes, and that the plaintiff, at the time of-entering into and forming said copartnership, and at all times since, well knew that such was to be and was the business of said copartnership, and that said copartnership was carrying on said business and letting said premises and furniture for the purposes aforesaid, and that all the rents received or collected by or on account of said copartnership, from the tenants in the complaint referred to and mentioned, were received and collected as rents for the houses and apartments used for the purposes aforesaid.”

The court found “that the said copartnership business has not at any time, never has been, and is not now, illegal, against good morals, or against public policy; that said copartnership firm simply rented the real property from one Da\\id M, Richards, between said