
    Boffenmyer’s Estate. Hess’s Appeal.
    
      Auditor'1 s findings as to partnership affirmed by court.
    
    The finding of fact by an auditor that a party sought to be charged as a partner was not a partner, either in fact or as to third parties, being approved by the court below, will not be reversed in the Supreme Court except for clear error.
    Argued May 16, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 90, July T., 1891, by a creditor, S. M. Hess, surviving partner of the firm of D. D. Hess & Son, from decree of O. P. Lancaster Co., dismissing exceptions to report of auditor on exceptions and distribution in assigned estate of Peter Boffenmyer.
    Before Pans ON, C.' J., Sterrett, Williams, McCollum and Heydrick, JJ.
    Before the auditor, H. M. Houser, appellant, presented as claims, notes signed by the assignor’s son, “ P. Boffenmyer & Son.” The auditor found that the notes were signed without the authority of the assignor, and that no partnership existed between the father and the son, and that appellant was told before the notes were given that there was no partnership. The claims were accordingly disallowed. Exceptions by appellant to these findings were dismissed by the court, Patterson, J., and the report confirmed. The evidence was conflicting.
    
      Errors assigned, inter alia, dismissal of these exceptions, quoting them, and confirming the report.
    
      J. W. E. Swift and AT. M. North, for appellant; Wm. Aug. Atlee and Wm. R. Wilson, for appellee.
    July 13, 1892.
   Per Curiam,

All of the material specifications allege error in the auditor’s finding of facts. No such clear error has been shown as would justify us in reversing them, especially as they have been approved by the learned judge below. A discussion of the evidence here would be out of place. •

The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.  