Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Loh King Yung v. Schmidt, 1887

[partnership]

Loh King Yung v. Schmidt

Supreme Court for China and Japan
Rennie CJ, 21 November 1887
Source: North China Herald, 24 November 1887

LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUPREME COURT,
Before Sir R. T. Rennie, Chief Justice.
Shanghai, November 21st, 1887
LOH KING YUNG v S. H. SCHMIDT.
  This was a suit for dissolution of Partnership between the plaintiff, Loh King Yung, commonly known as "Charley," and the defendant, Mr. Stephen Henry Schmidt, and also for the taking of an account of all partnership transactions.  The parties have been carrying on the business of the Criterion Hotel since the month of February 1886.
  Mr. R. E. Wainewright appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Robinson for the defendant.
   The reading of the petition and answer showed that the main facts in the petition were not denied, and that both parties were mutually dissatisfied with the other, and while the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was largely indebted to him, which the defendant on the other had denied.  The parties therefore came before the Court willing to accept the usual made by his Lordship.
  Mr. Wainewright suggested that it would be convenient if the accounts were referred to the Registrar with liberty to him to refer to a professional accountant.
  Mr. Robinson had no objection to Mr. Wilmer Harris, or Mr. Geo. Corner auditing the accounts.  He wanted to have the work pushed forward as rapidly as possible.
  His Lordship said that no inducement should be offered to either party to delay the taking of the account.
  Mr. Wainewright was most anxious to have the business expedited.
  Mr. Robinson suggested the month of December next as a good time for the sale, and Mr. Wainewright urged that the partnership be dissolved as soon as possible, and suggested Mr. Malcolm Jones as receiver and manager, as he could act through the court compradore who had practically been the receiver.
  His Lordship said that Mr. Jones was going home in January.
  Mr. Wainewright said he could act until that time when a successor could be appointed.  He did not know however whether Mr. Jones would be prepared to run the Hotel as manager (laughter.) He asked his Lordship to appoint Mr. Jones receiver and manager with power to him to depute the management to the plaintiff and defendant.  He had not seen Mr. Jones about the matter but he thought he would act.
  Mr. Robinson expressed his concurrence with Mr. Wainewright's suggestions.
  His Lordship said he would make it the joint management under the supervision of the receiver.  They had not yet settled when the partnership was to be dissolved.
  Mr. Wainewright thought it was of very little consequence, but at the same time he did not see why it should not be dissolved at once, as the parties were to be managers.
  His Lordship - Unless there is a good deal of money being made or lost.
  Mr. Robinson said there was a good deal of profit, and his learned friend said there was a good deal of loss.
  Mr. Jones arriving at this stage said he was prepared to act, but he had not very much experience in running a hotel, (laughter.)
  His Lordship made an order as agreed upon between Mr. Wainewright and Mr. Robinson and which was as follows: That the partnership be dissolved from this date with the same allowance to the partners as before; the account to be taken by the Registrar assisted by a professional accountant, of all dealings and transactions of the partnership; Mr. Malcolm Jones to be appointed receiver and manager until the day of sale.  The management of the concern to be carried on as heretofore subject to the supervision of the receiver the goodwill and stock in trade, of the partnership business, exclusive of book debts, to be sold on or about the 14th day of December next, the decree otherwise to be in the usual form.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School