
    Charles Seymour v. Horace R. Jerome and Edwin Jerome.
    A complainant may, at any time before there has been an interlocutory or final decree in a cause, dismiss the bill of course, on payment of costs.
    Where an interlocutory order had been entered by consent of parties, operating as an adjudication to some extent on the rights of the parties, the Court refused to allow the complainant to dismiss his bill.
    This was a bill for a settlement of partnership accounts between the complainant and defendant Horace R. Jerome. Edwin Jerome was made a party by reason of his claiming to be the owner of a bond and mortgage, executed by one Shepherd to Horace R. Jerome, which complainant was to pay, and which he alleged he had paid to H. R. Jerome, in their partnership dealings. The defendants answered, and, after a replication had been filed, an interlocutory order was entered, by consent of parties, for an account of the partnership business, to be taken and stated between the parties by a Master.
    
      E. S. Lee, for complainant, moved for leave to dismiss the bill on such terms as the Court might deem equitable.
    
      E. C. Seaman, for defendants, opposed the motion.
   The Chancellor.

The interlocutory decree, or order, was entered by consent of parties. It admits the partnership, and the right of complainant to an account of the partnership dealings. To that extent it is an adjudication on the rights of the parties. A complainant may, at any time before there has been an interlocutory or final decree in a cause, dismiss his bill of course, on the payment of costs. This is the general rule, but the present application does not come within it.

Motion denied.  