
    Perkins v. Perkins’ Ex’or.
    October Term, 1846,
    Richmond.
    (Absent Brooke, J.)
    Partners — Proof of Dissolution. — Three persons enter into articles of partnership, for the purpose of carrying' on a mercantile business, at a particu-
    lar place, of which one of them is to have the management. A store is opened at the place, and business carried on under the superintendence of the person designated in the articles. Upon a bill filed by the ex’or of one of the parties, for an account, and his share of the profits, the defendants must shew by satisfactory proofs, that the plaintiff’s testator was not a partner.
    The executor of William N. Perkins filed his bill in the Superior Court of Goochland, against Thomas J. *and Daniel Perkins, in which he charged that a partnership had existed between his testator and the defendants, in a mercantile business carried on in the county of Gooch-land ; and asking for a settlement of the partnership accounts, and for a share of the profits. The defendants answered, admitting that articles of partnership had been entered into between them and the plaintiff’s testator; but insisting that he had failed and refused to advance his proportion of the capital; and that they had, therefore, refused to admit him as a partner; and he had never set up any claim as such during his life.
    The articles of partnership, which are dated the 14th of September 1832, provide, that the partners shall carry on business as merchants in the county of Goochland, at the house in which Daniel Perkins was then doing business. That the goods were to be bought, and the business conducted under the name of Thomas J. Perkins & Co. ; and was to continue for two j'ears, unless sooner dissolved by mutual consent. That if necessary., William N. Perkins and Daniel Perkins were to furnish each his part of the monej' capital to pay the debts due by the concern, to keep up the credit of the same; and that Thomas J. Perkins was to pay them six per cent, interest until they were repaid: the stock to be joint, and the profits to be equally divided. Thomas J. Perkins was to be allowed 50 dollars a year for attending to the business; was to be the only ostensible person in the concern ; and was to have the whole control of the business, unless the partners should, differ in opinion; and then the majority should rule.
    A number of witnesses were examined; and from the testimony it is difficult to come to any conclusion as to what was the understanding between the parties whilst the business was going on. It appears that William JST. Perkins did not furnish any money to the concern; and all chat he put ' into it were some hats, pumps, and *two bags of coffee, which he obtained in Mobile, in exchange for tobacco. It appears too, that William N. and Thomas J. Perkins went to Richmond together, in the spring of 1833, to purchase goods; where Thomas J. Perkins insisted upon William N. advancing money for the purchase of goods; which he refused to do; and that Thomas J. then told him he should not have any interest in the concern. It appears too, that Thomas J. and Daniel Perkins spoke and acted as if William N. was not a partner; but he spoke as if he was. It appears that the partnership books afford no trace of a credit to William N. Perkins for either money or goods advanced by him to the partnership. And it does not appear that in his lifetime he ever presented any claim to an interest in the profits of the concern.
    When the cause came on to be heard, the Court made a decree, directing an account of the partnership transactions; and from this interlocutory decree, the defendants applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.
    Tyons, for the appellants,
    referred to Story on Part. p. 421, § 293; Domat’s Civil Daw, vol. 1, book 1, § 12, edi. of 1737; Skinner v. Dayton, 19 John. R. 513.
    Daniel, for the appellee,
    referred to Story on Part. 383, 322; Gow on Part. 109; Colyer on Part. 148-9; Venning v. Lecie, 13 East’s R. 7; Duncan v. Dyon, 3 John. Ch. R. 351.
   By the Court.

The decree is affirmed.  