Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/244

respondent out of his money above three years, when the interest whereof would have amounted to above 250l.

Die Veneris, 6 Junii, 1701. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the same should be dismissed, and the decree and orders complained of affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 725. (John Beresford.)

This cause is named in Pre. Ch. 171. on a dispute between respondent and his Attorney, but not reported in any book.

The appellant stated: That by articles, dated 3d April, 1671, a partnership for twenty years was entered into between Robert Morris, Godfrey Harrison, and two other persons, for the management of a Glasshouse, each party to bring in 800l. which was afterwards agreed to be increased 200l. a-piece, and by these articles it was agreed, that if any of the partners died, the partnership should continue amongst the survivors, and that the representative of the partner dying should have the benefit of the joint stock, and, proceed thereof as it stood at his death; and that the survivors should within a month after request, account with, and pay such executors and administrators (unless he or they agreed to continue in partnership) a fourth part of the said stock and estate, according to a reasonable value or estimation, deducting a fourth part of the debts then due and also should save them, harmless from all debts then owing by the partners, if they within a month after such account delivered, signified such their resolutions by writing under their hands and seals, and should seal a new indenture of co-partnership to the survivors; and if the joint estate fell short to pay the debts of the partnership, then the partners for the time being should pay them equally out of their own particular estates; that Godfrey Harrison died in September, 1675, and Robert Morris, in February following, and that before either died there proved great losses in the partnership, on account whereof 4000l. was taken up upon bonds from all the partners, towards which appellants paid 1775l. principal money, besides interest; and were also decreed in a suit against them by other partnership creditors to pay 850l. more, besides interest and costs, which they had since paid: That respondent, Mary [158] Harrison, pretended she, within a month after her husband's death, demanded an account from two of the partners, but not from Morris, who was then ill, and never afterwards concerned himself in the partnership to his death; and that after Morris's death, and not before, an account was delivered unto her, which had been afterwards falsified in several particulars; that Morris made a will, and charged his estate with his debts, and his three executors renouncing, administration with the will annexed, was in April, 1676, granted to appellant, Margaret, so that she could not require an account within a month after her husband's death, according to the articles; and the said appellant, Margaret, never came into the partnership, nor acted, nor could she do so unless she had entered into new articles with the surviving co-partners: That though respondents ought to bear equal proportions with appellants of the loss and debts of the partnership, yet respondent, Harrison, in Easter term, 1886, brought her bill against appellant, and the surviving partners, to have his land freed from the partnership debts; and in Trinity term, 1689, appellants likewise exhibited a bill against respondents, to make them pay their proportion of the debts: And, 5th December, 1695, both causes were heard before the Master of the Rolls, who decreed the account, so delivered as aforesaid, to be