
    Dixon Carroll, plaintiff in error, vs. John Martin, and others, defendants in error.
    Injunctiou properly dissolved.
    
      Motion to Dissolve Injunction. Decided by Judge Hansjbll. At Chambers. August, 1866.
    The bill alleged, a partnership between the complainant and the defendants in two kilns of brick, and an injunction was granted to secure the complainant’s alleged interest in the proceeds of both. The answer denied the partnership as to the second kiln, setting up that the partnership had previously been dissolved in consequence of a failure by the complainant to pay in capital according to his original undertaking.
    The presiding Judge dissolved the injunction, except as to matters touching the first kiln, and this judgment is brought up hy the complainant as erroneous.
    Sewabd & Weight, for plaintiff in error.
    Alexander, for defendants.
   Harris, J.

To have retained the injunction against the defendant as to the second kiln of bricks would, to some extent, have carried along with an order, after the motion made to dissolve, an implication that complainant had an unquestionable interest as a co-partner in said second kiln. That is a main point in controversy between the parties. The Judge acted discreetly in refusing to retain the injunction as to that kiln, from the facts as exhibited in the record. The question whether plaintiff had not distinctly withdrawn from the co-partnersjiip in the brick-making business, before defendants entered upon the making of such second kiln, is an appropriate one for a jury to decide, upon hearing all the testimony ; and when this shall have been determined, the task of adjlisting the relative rights and interests of the parties by a proper decree, will be one of easy accomplishment.

Judgment affirmed.  