The expression that partnership debts were treated in equity as joint and several explained. Ib.

To Outgoing Partner or Estate of Deceased Partner.]-A firm of three dissolved partnership, one of them retiring; and by the deed of dissolution, the two continuing partners covenanted for themselves, their heirs, executors, and administrators, that they, or one of them, would pay to the outgoing partner certain specified sums-Held, that this only constituted a joint liability at law, and could not be otherwise construed in equity. Wilmer v. Currey, 2 De G. & Sm. 347; 12 Jur. 847.

By an agreement between A., B., C. and D., four partners in a mercantile business, after reciting that all the partners had considerable sums of money employed in the business as floating capital, which it might be impracticable or highly detrimental for the others of them to repay or to advance from the business immediately after the retirement or death of either of them, it was agreed between and by them, that in case of either of them retiring from the copartnership business, or departing this life during its continuance, then and in such case the continuing or surviving partners or partner should not be compelled by such retiring partner, or by the executors or administrators of such deceased partner, to repay to him or them his or their share in the co-partnership business immediately; but the clear balance, as ascertained from the last stock-taking, due to such retiring or deceased partner, together with any additional capital (if any), should be repaid out of the business by the continuing or surviving partners Ly instalments, as therein mentioned, until the whole amount shall be fully paid or discharged, unless the surviving or continuing partners should wish to pay such share or balance at an earlier period, which they were to be at liberty to do:-Held, that the agreement was merely an arrangement as to the mode of discharging a pre-existing joint and several liability, and was not intended to alter the nature of the liability. | Beresford v. Browning, L. R. 20 Eq. 564; 33 L. T. 118. Affirmed, 45 L. J., Ch. 36; Ch. D. 30; 33 L. T. 524; 24 W. R. 120.

Held, also, that if the agreement did create a new liability, such new liability arising out of a¦ contract by a mercantile partnership was in equity several, and not joint merely. Ib. And see col. 606.

Promissory Note by Partners and Surety.]A. and B. being partners, and C., as their surety, give a joint and several promissory note to D., by which they "jointly and severally promise to pay" to D. the amount of a partnership debt due from A. and B. The note is signed by A. and B., not as individuals, but in their partnership firm, and by C. the surety :-Held, that this note could not be treated as the several note of each one of the three, but as the several note only of the surety, and the joint note of A. and B. Wilson, Ex parte, Manley, In re, 3 Mont. D. & D. 57.

"For Co. and Self."]-A bill drawn upon, and addressed to, the Milford Spinning Company as the drawee was accepted by F. Malcolmson, one of the partners, " for the Milford Spinning Company and self" :-Held, that the acceptance did not entitle the drawer to be paid

out of the separate estate of F. Malcolmson in a suit for administration of his assets. Malcolmson v. Malcolmson, 1 L. R. Ir. 228.

Bankruptcy, in Case of.]—Whatever may have been the origin of the rule, it is we'l settled, that in administration under bankruptcy the joint and separate estates of partners are considered as distinct, and a joint creditor having a security on the separate estate is entitled to prove against the joint estate without giving up his security on the ground that it is a different estate. Bank of Australia v. Flower, 35 L. J., P. C. 13; L. R. 1 P. C. 27; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 345; 14 L. T. 144; 14 W. R. 377. And see col. 624, and BANK RUPTCY.

IV. PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY.

1. GENERALLY.

Statutory Provisions.]-Sections 20 and 21 of the Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), provides as follows: (1) All property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the partnership stock, or acquired, whether by purchase or otherwise, on account of the firm, or for the purposes and in the course of the partnership business, must be held and applied by the partners exclusively for the purposes of the partnership and in accordance with the partnership agreement.

(2) Provided that the legal estate or interest in any land, or in Scotland the title to and interest in any heritable estate, which belongs to the partnership, shall devolve according to the nature and tenure thereof, and the general rules of law thereto applicable, but in trust so far as necessary for the persons beneficially interested in the land under this section.

Section 21. Unless the contrary intention appears, property bought with money belonging to the firm is deemed to have been bought on account of the firm.

Interest of Partners in.]—A partner's interest in the partnership property is his share upon the division of the surplus, after payment of the partnership debts. Garbett v. Veale, 5 Q. B. 408; D. & M. 458; 13 L. J., Q. B. 99; 336.

Jur.

Where A. and B. are partners, and a fi. fa. is issued upon a judgment recovered against A., and the sheriff thereupon enters and takes possession of the partnership property, he thereby seizes in execution only the interest of such partner in the goods. Johnson v. Evans, 7 Man. & G. 240; 7 Scott (N.R.) 1035; 13 L. J., C. P. 117; 8 Jur. 341.

One partner cannot maintain trover against a sheriff for a mere sale of his share of the partnership property under a fi. fa. issued against the other partner for a separate debt. The sheriff in such case is in the same position, so far as regards his liability in trover, as if the sale had been by the execution partner. Mayhew v. Herrick, 7 C. B. 229; 18 L. J., C. P. 179; 13 Jur. 1078.

A., having been in partnership with B., after B.'s death carried on the same business, and disposed of the stock and bought in new. Shortly after B.'s death a valuation was made, by which the property that had belonged to the partnership was estimated at a certain value. The business subsequently declined. On a bill filed by the representatives of B., A. was charged

with the amount of the valuation and interest since B.'s death, though the bill only prayed a partnership account. Booth v. Parkes, Beat.

414.

Trade Fixtures-Order and Disposition.]— Trade fixtures in leasehold premises, mortgaged by a firm of traders:-Held, not within their order and disposition, so as to pass to their assignees in bankruptcy; though the lease had Possession.]-Possession of some owners is run out, and, pending the negotiation with the possession of all. Machell, Ex parte, 2 Ves. & B. landlord for a new lease, the firm had occupied 216; 1 Rose, 447. the premises from year to year. Fearenside v. Derham, 13 L. J., Ch. 354; 8 Jur. 633.

Sale.]

Stipulation for Division Where articles stipulate for a division of the partnership property at the end of the partnership, a sale is intended. Rigden v. Pierce, Madd. 353; 23

R. R. 242.

Survivorship.]-Partnership determined by death, the legal property survives, not the beneficial interest. Right of the executor to the value of the testator's interest to be ascertained, not by calculation but by sale. Crawshay v. Collins, 15 Ves. 227; 10 R. R. 61.

Right of survivorship between two persons, builders, with a provision for a lease of the ground, but not general partners, not interfered with. Reilly v. Walsh, 11 Ir. Eq. R. 22.

Bequest.]-A bequest to the representatives of the late mercantile house of A. and K., or to such person or persons as should be entitled at testator's decease to their personal property, in satisfaction of a debt due by the testator's father:-Hell, claimable by the legal representative of the surviving partner as representing the firm of A. & K., and not by the persons beneficially entitled to the properties of A. and K. Kerrison v. Reddington, 11 Ir. Eq. R. 451.

Bills of Exchange.]-A bill of exchange received by a partner in a solicitor's firm from a client is, primâ facie, to be deemed to be received on behalf of the firm; and if the solicitors allege the contrary, they are bound to prove it by clear evidence. Moore v. Smith, 14

Beav. 393.

Mortgage of Property Purchased out of Joint Assets Joint Security.]-The interest of partners as tenants in common, where the estate was purchased out of the joint property, and mortgaged by the firm for a joint debt, is a joint security. Free, Ex parte, 2 Glyn & J. 250.

In Realty.]-Tenants in common of freehold land carried on business in partnership on part of such land; they mortgaged the whole of the land for the improvement of the business premises, and added some of the remaining land to the business premises-Held, that, having regard to sect. 2, sub-s. 1, and sect. 20, sub-s. 3 of the Partnershp Act, 1890, the business premises did not become part of the partnership assets. Davis v. Davis, 63 L. J., Ch. 219; [1894] 1 Ch. 393; 70 L. T. 265; 42 W. R. 312.

A., B., C. and D. joined in a partnership to work a fulling-mill. Money was subscribed by all the partners, with part of which freehold land was bought, which was conveyed to A. and B. in fee; with other part a mill was built on the land, and machinery for the mill was purchased. By a partnership deed executed by A., B., C. and D., the trusts of the land, mill, &c., were declared to be, that A. and B. should stand seised and possessed of all the estates, property, goods, &c., upon trust, for the benefit of themselves and their partners, as part of their partnership joint stock-in-trade. There was a provision in the deed that A. and B. might borrow money upon mortgage of the stock, property, estates, &c., belonging to the co-partnership: and it was declared that the land, mill, &c., should be deemed and considered as, or in the nature of, personal estate, and not real estate, and be held in trust for the partners as part of their partnership A. and B., under the powers of stock-in-trade. the deed, borrowed money for the purposes of the partnership, for which they gave bonds and notes in their own names, but did not mortgage :- Held, that each any part of the property :· partner had an interest in the realty, corresponding with the amount of shares held by him in the partnership. Baxter v. Brown, 7 Man. & G. 198; 8 Scott (N.R.) 1019.

Held, also, that the money so borrowed had not the effect of mortgages on the shares of the partners. Ib.

Patent Registered in Name of one Partner a Partnership Asset.]-When a partnership at will There is no rule, that where lands are bought is formed, for the purpose of working an invention for which a patent has previously been by partners in trade, and are paid for out of the taken out by and registered in the name of one partnership assets, taey of necessity become part of the partners alone, the patent becomes an of the joint estate; nor, on the other hn, that asset of the partnership, and each partner ac- if they are not bought for the purpose of the quires a right to practise the invention; and partnership business, they are not joint estate; this right is not taken away by the registered nor does the form of the converance settle the owners assigning the patent to third parties who question, which must be determined with referto all the circumstances of the case. have notice of the existence of the partnership. ence Kenny's Patent Button-holing Co. v. Somervell | MTenna, Ex parte, Streatfield, In re, 3 De G. F. & J. 615; 30 L. J.. Bk. 25; 9 W. R. 892. and Lutwyche, 38 L. T. 878; 26 W. R. 786. Burdon v. Barkus, 4 De G. F. & J. 42; 31 L. J., Ch. 521; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 656; 7 L. T. 116.

Personal Office Purchased out of Partnership Funds-Profits after Expiration of Partnership Term. Where a personal office or employment is purchased with the partnership funds for the benefit of the partnership, the partner in whose name it is purchased is not necessarily a trustee of the profits of the office for the other partners, after the term of the partnership has expired. Clarke v. Richards, 1 Y. & C. 351; 4 L. J., Ex. Eq. 49.

- Voluntary Settlement-Purchase by Partners.]-A. enters into partnership in fifths with three owners, for twenty-one years, in digging for mines in A.'s lands, A. to have two-fifths, and in consideration of his ownership of the land to have a tenth out of the other partners; A. dies, and his widow sets up a voluntary settlement made after marriage: The court

inclined to the opinion that the partners were as purchasers, and that the voluntary settlement should not stand against them. Shaw v. Standish, 2 Vern. 326.

Authority to order Servant to Remain in House.]—One of two partners, joint tenants of a house where their joint business is carried on, has a right to authorise a joint weekly servant to remain in the house, though the other partner has regularly given him a week's notice to leave the service. Donaldson v. Williams, 1 C. & M. 345; 3 Tyrw. 371; 2 L. J., Ex. 173.

Conversion of Real Estate-Land Purchased by Trading Firm.]-The share of a deceased partner in lands purchased by the members of a trading co-partnership, with money belong. ing to the partnership, and held as part of the stock of the firm, is to be deemed as converted into personal assets, and as such passes to his personal representative. A firm of co-partners, which was formed to carry on the business of corn factors, flour merchants and otherwise as the majority of the firm should agree to trade or deal in, acquired two denominations of freehold land, A. and B., purchased out of partnership assets. One of the partners farmed B., and resided there, and the accounts of the farming were entered in the profit and loss of the firm. The lands of A. were occupied by tenants, but the rents were also brought into the profit and loss account, and money was raised on the security of the lands for the purposes of the firm, on the death of one of the partners, whose share was not taken by the survivors:-Held, that the share of the deceased in the lands was personal property, which passed to his personal representative, not to his heir. Waterer v. Waterer (L. R. 15 Eq. 402) observed on and distinguished. Murtagh v. Costello, 7 L. R., Ir.

428. See col. 572.

plant, &c. :-Held, that the debts remained the property of the firm, notwithstanding the agree ment that they should belong to one. Brewster's Assignees, Ex parte, 22 L. J, Bk. 62.

A partnership firm of W. & G. being in insol. vent circumstances, a deed of dissolution was executed, whereby G. assigned to W. all his interest in the partnership assets, and W. covenanted to pay the partnership debts and indemnify G. from the liabilities of the partnership. Fourteen days afterwards W. & G. were adjudicated bankrupts :-Held, that the deed of dissolution was fraudulent and void as against the joint creditors, and that the whole of the partnership property as it existed at the date of the deed continued to be joint property. Mayou, Ex parte, EdwardsWood and Greenwood, In re, 4 De G. J. & S. 664; 6 N. R. 8; 34 L. J., Bk. 25; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 433; 12 L. T. 254; 13 W. R. 629.

An agreement for the dissolution of a partnership of two persons provided that the outgoing partner should assign his share in the partnership property to the continuing partner, and that out of the share a sum which had been withdrawn from the capital by the outgoing partner should be replaced, and that the assets should be realised for the benefit of both the partners according to their respective interests. An assignment was afterwards executed whereby the outgoing partner assigned his share of all the partnership property to the continuing partner, and in less than two months afterwards both became bankrupts :--Held, that the assignment was a complete and effectual conversion of the joint into separate assets as against the joint creditors. Walker, Ex parte and In re, 4 De G. F. & J. 509; 6 L. T. 631; 10 W. R. 656.

Sale to Partner-Non-payment of Purchase-money.]-By a decree made in a suit the partnership between the plaintiff and defendant was dissolved, and a sale of the partnership property ordered. In 1869 an order was made Information gained as a Partner.] If a for the sale of the partnership property to the member of a partnership firm avails himself of plaintiff for a certain sum, the plaintiff to be information obtained by him in the course of entitled to possession, and to pay interest on his the transaction of partnership business, or by purchase-money from the date of the order. The reason of his connection with the firm, for any plaintiff entered into possession under this order, purpose within the scope of the partnership but never paid the purchase-money, nor took business, or for any purpose which would com- any assignment of the partnership property. pete with the partnership business, he is liable The plaintiff afterwards became bankrupt, the to account to the firm for any benefit he may property was again sold, and part of the purchaseobtain from the use of such information; but if money had been paid into court:-Held, that, as he uses the information for purposes which are under the order of 1869 the plaintiff was in wholly without the scope of the partnership possession as sole owner at the time of his bankbusiness, and not competing with it, the firm is ruptcy, the fund in court belonged to his trustee not entitled to an account of such benefit. Aas in bankruptcy, and did not form part of the v. Benham, [1891] 2 Ch. 244; 65 L. T. 25-partnership assets. Graham v. McCulloch C. A. L. R. 20 Eq. 397; 32 L. T. 748; 23 W. R 786.

2. WHETHER JOINT OR SEPARATE ASSETS.

One Partner continuing Business under Firm's Dissolution-Agreement between Partners.]— Name.-A. and B. agree to dissolve partnership, Two partners had carried on business and dis- and publish a notice in the gazette to that effect, solved partnership. They gave notice of the dis- and also stating, that the debts due to and by solution in the gazette, and, by circular to the the old firm would be received and paid by A.; debtors, required the debts to be paid to one of no assignment is executed of the partnership the firm; and by the deed of dissolution the effects to A., who continues to carry on the plant, &c., was assigned to the same partner, and business on his own account, but under the partit was stipulated that he should pay the partner-nership firm :-Held, upon a joint fiat issued ship debts, and pay to the other the value of his share of the plant, &c., to be ascertained by arbitration. The partner who was thus declared entitled to the debts became bankrupt, and he kad not paid the price of the other's share of the

against A. and B., that the partnership property belonged to the joint estate, and not to the separate estate of A. Cooper, Ex parte, Johnston, In re, 1 Mont. D. & D. 358; 10 L. J., Bk. 11; 5 Jur. 10.

House partly used as Office.]-A house, of which part was used as an office for the purposes of the business (no rent being charged to the partnership for it), but of which the rents and profits were always carried to the separate account of one partner (who was the father of the other), and it was always treated between the two as his separate property :-Held, to belong to his separate estate. Murton, Ex parte, 1 Mont. D. & D. 252; 4 Jur. 894.

Furniture-Reputed Ownership.]-H. takes a lease in his own name, and puts his own furniture therein, for the use of the firm of H. & J.; the rent and other expenses are paid by the partnership, the apprentices are boarded and lodged there, and the house is occupied entirely for the purposes of the trade, J. living in the house, and H. himself residing elsewhere :-Held, that the furniture must be considered as in the reputed partnership of H. and J, and as forming part of the joint capital and stock of the partnership. Hare, Ex parte, 1 Deac. 16; 2 Mont. & Ayr.

478.

Compensation Award-Alien Enemy a Partner.]-Two American citizens and a French subject being in partnership, the owners of certain ships captured by British cruisers, and the commissioners under the treaty of commerce in 1794, between this country and America, for awarding compensation to American subjects who had suffered losses by capture, for which they could obtain no redress in the ordinary tribunals, having awarded in compensation of the ship of the partnership captured certain sums to the two Americans, with express exclusion of the French citizen, as an alien enemy :-Held, the sums so awarded are not partnership property, and the creditors of the partnership have no claim on them, as against the separate creditors of the Americans. Campbell v. Mullett, 2 Swanst. 553;

19 R. R. 127.

was not entitled to withdraw the 4,000l. when the firm was insolvent, and that as the money had not actually reached his hands it belonged to the joint creditors. Kemptner, In re, L. K. 8 Eq. 286; 21 L. T. 223; 17 W. R. 818.

Water Mills-Right to Water.]-Partners of a flour mill and corn mill supplied with water by the same mill pond, entered into an agreement for a partition, the water to be a joint right between the two establishments, which were to be determined by lot between the parties, the party to whom the flour mill might fall to have the right, at all times, to enter the establishment of the other, for the purpose of more effectually scouring the watercourse; and either party, finding it necessary to make any proper outlay for such purpose, might claim and recover half the amount from the other; and should the water at any time prove insufficient for the working of both mills together, it was agreed that each concern should have the entire right of water during each alternate twelve hours :—Held, that the parties were entitled to a joint and equal right to the entire water, although at the date of the agreement the supply to the mills was unequal. Hamilton v. Fawcett, 9 Ir. Ch. R. 397.

Ship Purchased by one Partner.]-Ships purchased by one partner, held separate property as between creditors after his bankruptcy and death of the other, upon circumstances; particularly the registry being made in the name of one partner only, and being afterwards continued for a fraudulent purpose. Curtis v. Perry, 6 Ves. 739; 6 R. R. 28.

Out of Partnership Assets.]-A ship was purchased by a partner for himself, but was paid for out of the partnership assets. The firm became bankrupt :-Held, that the firm had no interest in the ship, or any lien on it for the amount of the purchase money. Walton v. Butler, 29 Beav. 428.

Trust for Partnership.]-A. and B. partners; A. dies, there being then joint property in hands of A. and B.'s bankers; towards execution of a Stock-in-Trade-New Firm-Dormant Partner previous arrangement, B., for partnership pur--Reputed Ownership.]—J. C. S. and W. S., carposes, draws on bank, and hands money to trustees, and on agreement that if object of trust failed, money should be returned; it fails, and B. becomes bankrupt, money remaining in trustees' hands-Held, that the money is the joint property of A. and B., applicable to their joint debts, and not the property of B. alone, as surviving partner. Leaf, Ex parte, Simpson, In re, Mont. & C. 662; 4 Deac. 287; 9 L. J., Bk. 9.

rying on business as brewers, in co-partnership, admitted W. W as a dormant partner. It was stipulated by deed that the stock and effects of the old firm, including the plant, &c., and book debts, should form part of the capital stock of the new co-partnership; that W. W. should be paid 10 per cent. on the capital advanced by him, and should not otherwise interfere. The business was carried on as before, in the names of J. C. S. and W. S. only, until the new firm Withdrawal of Money-Insolvency of Firm.]- became bankrupt. Upon petition of several creK., a partner in the firm of K. & Co., being en-ditors of the old firm, some of whom had notice titled by the articles of partnership and desiring to withdraw 4,0001. from the capital of the firm. which was in a state of insolvency, bills of exchange to that amount, in three sets, were bought by and made payable to the order of the firm, and the first set of bills was indorsed by K. & Co. and delivered to K. K. died without receiving payment of the bills, and the first set Shares Purchased in Name of Co-partner.]— was lost. The surviving partners executed a M. and W. were in partnership as solicitors. A creditors' deed, and the second set of bills not benefit society had been formed at Worksop, having been indorsed was claimed by the trus- where the partners resided, to last for ten years. tees of the deed as partnership assets, and by K.'s On the formation of the society W. entered the executors as his separate estate. By arrange- name of M. as a subscriber for eight shares in ment the bills were indorsed to stakeholders, and the company, he himself having also eight the money was paid into court :-Held, that K.shares. M. never executed the deed of the com

of the dormant partner, it was held, that all the personal chattels of the new firm were within the order and disposition of J. C. S. and W. S., and ought to be administered in the bankruptcy as the separate estate of the two. Jennings, Ex parte, Starkey, In re, Mont. 45.

pany. The subscriptions in respect of M.'s shares provided that if D. died during the continuance were always paid by W. At the termination of of the partnership his share in the profits should the ten years the affairs of the company were revert to the other partners, and his representawound up, and W. claimed to participate in the tives should receive nothing more than a proceeds of the company in respect of the eight proportionate part of his share of the profits of shares subscribed in the name of M. as well as the current half-year, up to the day of his death. his own. The company had never been enrolled D. died, leaving W. and T. him surviving. or registered under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. M. Afterwards W. died, and then the business was claimed the proceeds in respect of his eight shares carried on for some months by T. alone, who so standing in his name; W. resisted this, on the ultimately filed a liquidation petition. At the ground of the illegality of the company :-Held, date of the petition there were assets existing in nevertheless, on a bill by M. for the proceeds of specie which belonged to the firm before D.'s the eight shares, that, as they had been separated death :-Held, that the provisions of the deed and ear-marked, and were standing in the name did not take away the right of D.'s executors to of M., he was entitled to the benefit of these be indemnified out of the assets of the firm existeight shares. Mason v. Watkins, 10 L. T. 453. ing at D.'s death; and that, therefore, the assets remaining in specie were primarily applicable to the payment of the joint debts of the three partners, and that the joint creditors could not prove against the separate trade assets of W. or of T., till their separate creditors had been paid in full. Dear, Ex parte, White, In re, 45 L. J., Bk. 22; 1 Ch. D. 514; 34 L. T. 631; 24 W. R. 525.

Trust Money lent to Partnership.]- Refusal under the circumstances to interfere by injunction on behalf of partnership creditor to restrain the payment of trust moneys lent to the partnership, the firm having become bankrupt. May v. Crosswell, 7 Jur. 841.

Mill brought in by one Partner-Partnership Asset.]-On the formation of a partnership it was agreed that the business should be carried on at a mill belonging to one of the partners: and he was credited in the books of the partnership with the value of the mill. From time to time sums were expended in making additions to and improvements in the mill; and in the yearly balance-she. ts the mill was entered at the original value, increased by the amount so expended, but less a certain amount for depreciation, and the partners were allowed interest on the sums from time to time standing to their capital accounts:-Held, that in the absence of any special agreement the mill was an asset of the partnership, and that on a sale of the business, under which the purchase money of the mill was largely in excess of its value in the looks, the difference was profit divisible in the proportions in which the profits of the business were divisible at the time of the sale. Robinson v. Ashton, 44 L. J., Ch. 542; L. R. 20 Eq. 25; 33 L. T. 88; 23 W. R. 674.

One-third Share of Farm Purchased by two Continuing Partners.]-Three brothers, tenants in common of a farm and lands in Wales, carried on farming together. One brother died, having devised his one-third share to a nephew, and he and the two surviving brothers, B. and W., continued to carry on the farming. The nephew sold his one-third share of the farm and lands to his uncles, B. and W., the conveyance being to them as joint tenants, and they continued to carry on the farming. B. died, having given all his property to his wife. The farm and lands were subsequently sold. W. claimed as surviving joint tenant, the proceeds of sale, representing the one-third share purchased from the nephew -Held, that the one-third share became involved in partnership dealings, and must be regarded as partnership property, and that W. was entitled to only a moiety of the proceeds of sale. Davies v. Games, 12 Ch. D. 813; 28 W. R. 16.

Share in Profits but not Capital-Right to Indemnity.-D. carried on business in partnership with W. and T., under a deed which provided that D. should be a partner in the profits, but not in the capital of the business, and should not be required to bring in any capital. The deed

By a deed executed at the time when the bankrupt was taken into partnership by his father in a banking business, it was provided that the capital of the said partnership then was and should, during the continuance of the partnership, remain the sole property of the father, as well as the reserve fund set aside by him to provide for bad debts. In the event of the death of the father during the lifetime of the son and during the continuance of the partnership, the name of the father was to remain in the firm, and all the capital employed by the father in the business at the time of his death was to remain therein and be employed by the son in carrying on the business for the period of one year, the son depositing with the executors of the father sufiicient security for the repayment of the said capital with interest. And from and after the end of the term of one year the son should be absolutely entitled to the whole of the capital and profits of the business on payment to the executors of a sum of money equal to the amount or value of the whole of the capital (whether as reserve fund or otherwise) which might happen to be invested by the father in the business at the time of his death. It was further provided that, on the death of either partner during the continuance of the partnership, the surviving partner, his executors or administrators, should, if required, execute and deliver a bond in a sufficient penalty to the executors or administrators of the deceased partner for indemnifying him and the estate of the deceased partner from the debts, engagements, and liabilities of the partnership and from all expenses on acccount of the same, and the executors or administrators of the deceased partner, should, if required (subject to the provisions of the last-mentioned clause) release and assign unto the surviving partner, his executors or administrators, all their share, right, title and interest in the capital and property of the partnership and empower them to recover and receive the same. The father died during the lifetime of the son, and the son after carrying on the business for a time, became bankrupt. On application by the trustee in the bankruptcy for an order declaring that all the assets formerly belonging to the partnership had at the commencement of the bankruptcy become the separate property of the bankrupt, and vested in the trustee as part of his separate