having the title first established at Law, if there is no doubt as to the title (x).

Where a person has been ejected at Law, and the other party has been in possession above twenty years, and no account demanded, or bill filed in that time, the Statute of Limitations (y) will bar an account in Equity, as well as an action for the mesne profits at Law; but this statute does not extend to a trust (≈).

In all cases where questions have arisen about Shares in Water-works, the parties have constantly resorted to Equity for mesne profits, though it is a legal Estate, and a corporeal inheritance (a).

Under the head of Account, it is, that Partnership Dealings form a subject of equitable cognizance (b). If there be no admitted balance, a court of Law cannot give relief (c). But to have relief in Equity, the Partnership must not be illegal, as in Underwriting, for in such case a bill for an Account will not lie (d).

According to the report of Forman v. Homfray (e), it has been said, there is no instance of a Partner being allowed to pray for an Account merely, and not for a Dissolution of the Partnership, for otherwise, a Partner might file a bill annually for an account, and that a bill, to be sustainable, must show the Partnership is dissolved, or pray that it may be. But in a recent case

that doctrine was denied; and it was observed, that a bill for an account was the only relief a Partner had ; and that what was said in Forman v. Homfray only applied to the case of an injunction (ƒ).

It has been holden, that a Court of Equity has Jurisdiction against a Corporation on a Bill for an Account of Profits, in the nature of a Partnership; and this, not only at the instance of a member, but of a stranger (g).

A Society for relief in sickness, &c. by means of a Fund raised by Subscription of the Members, has been considered as a Partnership, it having no corporate character (h); and where it has been found that the Society has existed upon principles, which, with reference to the amount of the number of Subscribers, and the nature of the subscriptions, made the whole a bubble, the same has been dissolved, each member receiving a proportion of the sums subscribed (i).

Partners are joint-tenants in the stock, and all effects; and not only in that particular stock in being at the time of entering into the Partnership, but they continue so throughout, whatever changes may be made in the course of trade (k); but Part Owners of a Ship are considered only as tenants in common, and not joint tenants ().

(f) Harrison v. Armitage, 3 Madd. Rep.; and see Knowles v. Haughton, 11 Ves. 168.

(g) 17 Ves. 315; and see further as to this case, 1 Meriv. 107. See also Attorney General v. Governors of Foundling Hospital, 2 Ves. Jun. 42.

(h) Beaumont v. Meredith,

(i) Buckley v. Cater, stated 17 Ves. 15. Pearce v. Piper, 17 Ves. 1; and see Beaumont v. Meredith, 3 Ves. & Bea. 180.

(k) 1 Ves. 242, 3; and see Lyster v. Dolland, 1 Ves. Jun.

435.

(1) Ex parie Young, 2 Ves.

If a person becomes by his acts a Partner, in a Colliery, for instance, in which land is necessary to carry on a trade, the interest in a lease will pass as an incident to the trade, by operation of Law, and is not affected by the Statute of Frauds (m) Being thus seised per my et per tout, where an Account is to be taken, each is entitled to be allowed against the other every thing he has advanced or brought in as a partnership transaction, and to charge the other in that Account with what he has not brought in, or has taken out more than he ought; and nothing is to be considered as his share but his proportion of the residue in the balance of the Account (n).

A Judgment and Execution against one partner for his separate debt, does not put the other in a worse condition; for he must have all the allowances made him before the Judgment Creditor can have the share of the other applied to him.

So, if one partner dies, the debts and effects survive; but the survivor, unless it is expressly provided otherwise (o), is considered in Equity, (except as to the good-will of the trade, which survives, and is not partnership stock (p),) barely as a trustee for the representatives of the deceased, upon which footing the Account would be taken, and nothing considered as the share of the survivor till afterwards (q); which is from the continuance of the property in the stock to

(m) Forster v. Hale, 3 Ves. 696. 5 Ves. 308.

(n) West v. Skip, 1 Ves. 242, 3. (0) Peace v. Chamberlaine, 1 Ves. 33.

(p) Hammond v. Douglas, 5 Ves. 539. Farr v. Pearce, 3 Madd. Rep. 74. Sed vid.

Crawshay v. Collins, 15 Ves.

227.

(q) 1 Ves. 243; and see as to this Croft v. Pyke, 3 P. Wms. 182, and ex parte Williams, 11 Ves. 5; and ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 126, 7. Annand v. Honiwood, 2 Chan. Cas. 129.

the representative of the deceased partner, who has a specific lien thereon, although the survivor afterwards dies, or becomes bankrupt. If the surviving Partner carries on the trade with the capital with which the Testator carried it on, the profits will belong to those entitled to the personal estate, in proportion to their shares (r). So, if the partnership is dissolved by consent, or by effluxion of time (s), that determines not the legal interest, which continues as before; nor is the property in the stock of the partner so going out divested thereby; but he remains equally entitled as Joint-tenant with the other: and in a Bill for an Account, the stock would be subjected for his satisfaction. As between one partner, and the separate creditors of the other, the separate creditors cannot affect the stock any further than that partner could whose creditors they are (t); and if they proceed against the partnership property, the partners may file a Bill to be quieted in the possession of the partnership effects, and pray for an Account of what is due to the partner so giving a security, and for an injunction in the mean time (u).

Upon an Extent against the Partner, the Crown can only take the separate interest of the Partner, and that, liable to the partnership debts (x).

Courts of Law have followed Courts of Equity in giving execution against Partnership Effects, but do

(r) Hill v. Burnham, cited Arg. 15 Ves. 220. Brown v. Vidler, cited Ib. p. 223. Coxwell v. Bromet, cited Ib.

(s) 1 Ves. 243.; and see ex parte Smith, 5 Ves. 297.

243; and see Young v. Keighley, 15 Ves. 557.

(u) Taylor v. Fields, 15 Ves. 559, in note, and 4 Ves. Jun. 396. S. C. MS. and see Barker v. Goodair, 11 Ves. 85.

(x) King v. Saunderson, 1

not appear to adhere to the principle, when they suppose that the interest can be sold before it has been ascertained what is the subject of sale and purchase. According to the old law, before Lord Mansfield's time, the Sheriff, under an execution against Partnership effects, took the undivided share of the debtor, without reference to the Partnership Account; but a Court of Equity would have set that right, by taking an account, and ascertaining what the Sheriff ought to have sold. The Courts of Law, however, have repeatedly laid down(y), that they will sell the actual iuterest of the Partner, professing to execute the equities between the Parties, but forgetting that a Court of Equity ascertained previously what was to be sold. How could a Court of Law ascertain what was the interest to be sold, and what the equities, depending upon an Account of the Partners for years (2)?

Where there has been a fair dissolution of partnership between two; and one by agreement retains the partnership effects, and afterwards becomes a bankrupt, the joint creditors have no right as against what was joint property, remaining in specie (a); for by the agreement, the joint became separate Estate, if possession of the joint property was given to the one Partner according to the nature of the contract (b).

A partnership, without any agreement for continuance, may be dissolved at any time when either party

(y) Barkhurst v. Clinkard, 1 Shaw, 173. Eddie v. Da dson, Dougl. 650.; and see Scott v. Scholey, 8 East, 467.

(z) Per Lord Eldon. See Waters. Taylor, 2 Ves. & Bea. 301.

(a) Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves.

119. Ex parte Williams, 11 Ves. 3.; and see ex parte Fell, 10 Ves. 347. Anon. 11 January 1807, MS. and see 1 vol. Rose, 416.

(b) Ex parte Harris, Madd. Rep. 589.