
    John Seeley vs. Samuel Savercool.
    
      Dormant Partner.
    
    One Hiram S. Lapham put about $450 into plaintiff’s business, shared in the profits, and in a portion of the losses, but the business was done solely in plaintiff’s name, and defendant supposed he was the sole proprietor. Lapham acted as clerk in plaintiff’s store, and did not assume to be proprietor.
    On exception to the report of the Referee, who found lor plaintiff, (Parsons on Part., 41 A. 54, 83.) (Story ■on Part. Sec. 80.) (30 N. Y. 374.) (34 N. Y. 181.)
    
      Patchin & Brown for Plaintiff.
    
      D. B. and II. M. Duffield for Defendant.
   The Court,

Walker, J.:

Held, that Lapham was a dormant partner and that the suit was properly brought in the sole name of plaintiff.

Report of Referee confirmed.

(A. D., 1868.)  