
    YOUNG and CHATTIN against BRICK and M'CCORMICK.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    Action of debt lies not between partners, on an unsettled partnership account.
    
    The action below was an action brought on the following state of demand;
    The plaintiffs come into court and demand of the defendants one hundred dollars, for that, whereas the said plaintiffs and defendants [*] on the 9t,h day of March, 1809, were the owners of the sloop called the Constitution, of Port Elizabeth, with her apparel, the one third part to the Slaintiffs, and the remaining two thirds to the defendants, and the said efendants had and used the one third part of said sloop belonging to the said plaintiffs from the said ninth day of March aforesaid, until the seventh of July next following, and during all that time, had and received all the freight of the said one third part of said sloop belonging to plaintiffs, amounting to the aforesaid sum of SjilOO and hath hitherto refused, and still do refuse to pay the same to the plaintiffs.
    Brick and M’Cormick, the plaintiffs below, recovered a judgment of $72, with costs.
    The counsel for the plaintiffs in certiorari contended, that the state of demand was for a partnership demand; and therefore ought to have been an action of account rendered, and not debt. Hinny’s Rep. 192.
    
    
      
       S. P. Chit. Pl. 27. 14 Johns. 318. 4 Dal. 434.
      
    
   By the Court.

This is plainly a partnership transaction; the sloop was owned by the plaintiffs and defendants in partnership; the defendants are charged with receiving all the freight; and the action is brought to recover the plaintiff’s proportion of it; the demand, from its nature, brings into controversy an unsettled partnership account, which cannot be determined in this form of action.

Judgment reversed.  